Time to Start Paying Attention, America!

[Warsaw]

Full Article Here (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html)


1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.
"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.
"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.

Alright, America. Now that we have a someone actually trying to pass this, it's time to start giving a shit. Discuss.

[TeeKup]

Congress has too much power as is, they're what keep Congress and the President in line for the most part. The reason the Supreme Court has "unlimited" power is override bullshit bills and laws moved by Congress and to an extent the President.

When has the Supreme Court EVER caught the attention of the general public for doing something "out of bounds" or "unconstitutional" ? This man is fucking full of himself.

EDIT:
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "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." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."

"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."

A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.

Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

@6 This man is complete off his fucking rocker. How is this buffoon a Governor. What the fuck is the tangible benefit to anyone of the banning of Gay Marriage. Is your religious belief offended? BOO FUCKING HOO, GET OVER IT. What the fuck happened to the Crusades when Christianity ransacked and destroyed the middle east for a good portion of history. Freedom of Religion in our constitution also means Freedom FROM religion, Why the FUCK does anyone not understand this!?

Number 5 is the only reasonable thing I saw in that article.

[TVTyrant]

Sounds impossible to pass.

[Warsaw]

Consider this: he's a presidential candidate for 2012. If he's actually being taken seriously, this is a problem. Also, Congress would love to pass an amendment that gives them more power. If Congress can override the Supreme Court, you better start sucking up to the nearest large business to you. You may also kiss your rights goodbye.

[Amit]

Welcome to Canada. Rent starts at $250/week.

[ejburke]

For a minute there I thought you were in favor of this Top Seven List of Shitty Ideas.

I think a ridiculous caricature like this guy is a good thing to have around. If he gets any attention at all, it's be as the Ronald McDonald of the religious right.

[Phopojijo]

Welcome to Canada. Rent starts at $250/week.???

Canada has judicial oversight... parliament was struck down many times by court.

Also... isn't this the whole reason for the three branches?

P.S. -- Those "Nine Unelected Judges" don't decide how you live. The constitution, common law, and so forth decides how you live. The Supreme Court is supposed to decide how those laws apply in each situation. That's their job. That's one of the reasons why they don't make bills, just decide legality of them.

[Warsaw]

For a minute there I thought you were in favor of this Top Seven List of Shitty Ideas.

I think a ridiculous caricature like this guy is a good thing to have around. If he gets any attention at all, it's be as the Ronald McDonald of the religious right.

You would be surprised. It frequently wasn't the raping of Constitutional rights that turned people off of him. Only at the religion-meddling ideas did they thumb their noses.

[Amit]

I should probably change my post to "Canada welcomes you."

[Patrickssj6]

Can't we have a vB plugin that displays a flag beneath each user based on his country? Always having trouble spotting the Canadians.

[TeeKup]

People could always use the "Location" feature appropriately.

[Higuy]

That guy sounds like a fucking retard. Even though I don't think being gay is right, some people have their own opinions on the matter and, well, we ARE supposed to be a free country. You'd think people could do whatever they want when it came to stuff like that.

[Rainbow Dash]

Hahahhaha

Rick Perry?

I refuse to believe there's anyone here stupid enough to vote for him.

[Patrickssj6]

Just checked out his website.

387E_wc3igo

One question, why does everyone blame Obama for the financial situation even though it's clear that it's not his fault?

[Rainbow Dash]

Because most people can be piss easily convinced any ludicrous thing is true.

lol

[Bodzilla]

they wanna fix tax?

Fix the loopholes, and stop giving tax breaks to the rich.
look at warren buffet for example.

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

warren buffet for president.

[Hotrod]

Can't we have a vB plugin that displays a flag beneath each user based on his country? Always having trouble spotting the Canadians.
Look at our location, it says it all for us.

This Rick Perry guy seems like an idiot... I don't mean to hate on religion (especially since I'm religious myself), but you should NEVER let a religious extremist run a country. As you can see with this, they'll try to shove their own morals into other people's faces.

[paladin]

Scratch the last two, but there's nothing wrong with the first 5. Clarence Thomas is a shining example for number 1 and 2. He needs to add Term Limits to the House and Senate and it'd be perfect.

[Warsaw]

Hahahhaha

Rick Perry?

I refuse to believe there's anyone here stupid enough to vote for him.

This is America. It's a day-to-day reality. People were already stupid enough to vote him into his current office.

[Patrickssj6]

This guy has my vote

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Sharkey.JPG/111px-Sharkey.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sharkey.JPG)


Perennial candidate Jonathon Sharkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Sharkey) of Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida)

[Kornman00]

Consider this: he's a presidential candidate for 2012.
Surely America isn't stupid enough to vote another fucking half baked (from heat and right-winged Christian nonsense) Texan into position of the POTUS...right?

Palin was a candidate in '08 but that didn't, and still doesn't, mean shit (herp derp, look at me in my tour bus!).

Guess it's a good thing these GOP idiots support the 2nd amendment, so on the off chance they are elected and actually do something totally fucking retard (besides actually getting elected), we have the right to bear arms and take some power back. Well, unless they lie about that, and have their Super Congress abolish the 2nd amendment.

[Amit]

Shhhh! They could be listening.

[paladin]

Honestly though... anyone, democratic or republican would be better than Obama right now.

[=sw=warlord]

Honestly though... anyone, democratic or republican would be better than Obama right now.
Why?
Because he's Black?
Or is it because he is doing things differently compared to the previous presidents?
Because obviously George bush and bill Clinton before him were so brilliant as leaders weren't they?

[Limited]

Honestly though... anyone, democratic or republican would be better than Obama right now.
What is with all the Obama hate, has he done some massively bad thing or something? He has completed turned around world affairs for the US - for the good.

Would you rather have George Bush back, or keep Obama in? Must pick one.

[Kornman00]

Americans just find it easier to blame Black people for their problems. They consider it "bonus points" if they're also the president.

[TVTyrant]

Americans just find it easier to blame Black people for their problems. They consider it "bonus points" if they're also the president.
Black people represent everything wrong with America. Thats why every single one I've met has been an extremely upright moral person who is now in college and working very hard for everything they have.

[sleepy1212]

Why?
Because he's Black?

hilarious. stupid, but hilarious.


Americans just find it easier to blame Black people for their problems. They consider it "bonus points" if they're also the president.

what is this? some kind of liberal circle-jerk?


What is with all the Obama hate, has he done some massively bad thing or something?

He's a terrible president. Too inexperienced and it shows because of his inattention (vacationing like a mad man), his divisiveness and verbal attacks on the other party, and his inability to accept responsibility years after his election and in spite of having a party majority for most of it (he still blames republicans for all the things that have gone wrong for him).


Would you rather have George Bush back, or keep Obama in? Must pick one.

I can't hate them both at the same time? Does that break the laws of your universe?


OT: After the GOP debate last week there was a viewer poll that Ron Paul apparently won. Sean Hannity and others at Fox claimed Rick Perry won it. Which makes sense. The Talk Radio guys (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity) have gotten really bad lately with the religious talk. Ron Paul's positions of defense cuts and drug legalization, among others, fly in the face of the "20%" aka, religious progressive right. Rick Perry fits their bill. Fox has been supporting him heavily. It's scary.

[Patrickssj6]

...in spite of having a party majority for most of it (he still blames republicans for all the things that have gone wrong for him).
No, at any given point he never had support from the opposition or the people which makes proper governing impossible.

Inexperienced? The president you had before was a lunatic and got you into this whole financial mess, the president before was a cock sucker. Who are you compraing Obama to? To yourself?

[=sw=warlord]

This just in, If you're President you need to have experience before your first experience of being President.

[sleepy1212]

No, at any given point he never had support from the opposition or the people which makes proper governing impossible.

I could do my job if everyone just agreed with me, waaaaaaah!


Inexperienced? The president you had before was a lunatic and got you into this whole financial mess

You do realize as a senator he voted against reform of Fannie/Freddie? Consider the questionable economic philosophy that led to the stimulus. Or maybe the lack of confidence from the market caused by his feeble and inconsistent economic views. Tax hikes, moratoriums and attacks on oil drilling and coal production, increased environmental regulation including threats of an environmental policy that could seriously threaten the viability of a 1st world economy, expansion of entitlement programs despite the looming debt crisis, the inability of congress to satisfy budget requirements and his lack of leadership to seek an end to the standoff and instead choosing to play party politics, increased and unaccountable regulatory agency leadership and policy resulting in unknown numbers of constitutional breaches and stifling regulations, failure to bring an end to the war (as promised) and instead increased overseas operations, or just his general absenteeism.

Take your pick and wonder why both the DOW and S&P are plummeting. Sure is 'all Bush's fault' up in 2011.


This just in, If you're President you need to have experience before your first experience of being President.

This just in, leadership is a skill.

[Rainbow Dash]

This just in, If you're President you need to have experience before your first experience of being President.

fuck you sleepy you're making me actually have to agree with this kid.

[Warsaw]

No, at any given point he never had support from the opposition or the people which makes proper governing impossible.

Inexperienced? The president you had before was a lunatic and got you into this whole financial mess, the president before was a cock sucker. Who are you compraing Obama to? To yourself?

I like how everybody pins everything on the President, as if he has the power to tell banks how to behave. Look to Congress, folks.

[=sw=warlord]

I like how everybody pins everything on the President, as if he has the power to tell banks how to behave. Look to Congress, folks.
This.

@ sleepy
The president isn't a one man army, they need their government to be involved in the process, leadership may be a skill, But it is one which requires co-operation from those around them.
How can a leader do their job if those under their command act belligerently?
Thus far, Obama has had major criticisms purely over the colour of his skin, one high profile person went so far as to ask where his birth certificate was in a low attempt to try and disprove Barack's claim to presidency.

You mention that it is now 2011, You seem to be forgetting just how bad in debt the United states of America really is, the government is looking to save 1 trillion over 10 years, the government is in a debt of 14 trillion dollars (http://www.usdebtclock.org/), How do you expect Obama to clear that monumental amount in only the short term he has been in power?

[Phopojijo]

He's a terrible president. Too inexperienced and it shows because of his inattention (vacationing like a mad man), his divisiveness and verbal attacks on the other party, and his inability to accept responsibility years after his election and in spite of having a party majority for most of it (he still blames republicans for all the things that have gone wrong for him).I think you should check your facts on that one. Perhaps cross-reference George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan. You know, the last three Republican presidents with no exceptions.

[paladin]

Why?
Because he's Black?
Or is it because he is doing things differently compared to the previous presidents?
Because obviously George bush and bill Clinton before him were so brilliant as leaders weren't they?

Yes. I hate Black People. Thats why he's a terrible president. It has nothing to with his spending or policy or view of our nation.


I like how everybody pins everything on the President, as if he has the power to tell banks how to behave. Look to Congress, folks.

They did it to Bush. We'll do it to Obama. Can do one and not the other.

[Phopojijo]

They did it to Bush. We'll do it to Obama. Can do one and not the other.Yes you can, if one did something wrong but not the other.

That said, I don't approve of Obama's term in office thus far -- particularly when it comes to his administration's hard-ass stance on IP law.

(Protip: Content companies are killing themselves because they have *too* much control which is eating into their audience faster than they can increase the profitability of their market... then they blame the lost revenue on a *lack* of control. It's like an drug addict blaming their crappy life on not being high through enough of it.)

I definitely disagree with Rick Perry though. "We love the constitution except when we have a 66% majority vote."

[Warsaw]

They did it to Bush. We'll do it to Obama. Can do one and not the other.

Just to clarify, I'm not on any "side" here. I'm just stating that whenver the country is having a hard time, everyone rushes to blame the President. FYI, America, the President doesn't make laws, and he can't always block a bad one. The only thing he can really do is get us into military trouble. Everything else, blame Congress.

[Patrickssj6]

Just to clarify, I'm not on any "side" here. I'm just stating that whenver the country is having a hard time, everyone rushes to blame the President. FYI, America, the President doesn't make laws, and he can't always block a bad one. The only thing he can really do is get us into military trouble. Everything else, blame Congress.
Well in America the president has more power over the congress than other countries that's why it's fine to use him as a scape goat in a discussion I guess :P

[king_nothing_]

Fuck Rick Perry.



OT: After the GOP debate last week there was a viewer poll that Ron Paul apparently won. Sean Hannity and others at Fox claimed Rick Perry won it. Which makes sense. The Talk Radio guys (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity) have gotten really bad lately with the religious talk. Ron Paul's positions of defense cuts and drug legalization, among others, fly in the face of the "20%" aka, religious progressive right. Rick Perry fits their bill. Fox has been supporting him heavily. It's scary.
:highfive:

EDIT: Wait a minute...Rick Perry wasn't at the debate. :/

But yeah, just about every time Ron Paul wins one of their polls (which he usually does), they either take it down or completely ignore it. Here's the one they put up right after the last debate: http://www.topix.com/issue/gop-debate-aug11

It was on their site for all of a couple hours before they removed it.

[sleepy1212]

I think you should check your facts on that one. Perhaps cross-reference George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan. You know, the last three Republican presidents with no exceptions.

Why would I compare the latest shitty president with the last 30 years worth of shitty presidents?


Wait a minute...Rick Perry wasn't at the debate. :/

Rick Perry wins all the polls :ugh:

[paladin]

Just to clarify, I'm not on any "side" here. I'm just stating that whenver the country is having a hard time, everyone rushes to blame the President. FYI, America, the President doesn't make laws, and he can't always block a bad one. The only thing he can really do is get us into military trouble. Everything else, blame Congress.

Thats what I was saying too. Everyone blames Bush for everything, yet there was a Democratic-control house and senate for a lot of his presidency. That doesnt make him a God, but it justifies people blaming B.

[king_nothing_]

The Obama and Bush defending in here is lol. Obama sucks. Bush sucked. The partisan squabbling is ridiculous considering that in reality the two parties are not all that different anymore. How big of a difference do we see between a Republican administration and a Democratic one? Not much. They both keep us in perpetual war. They both grow the size of government. They both spend way too much. They both believe in Keynesian economics. They both violate the Constitution. What the fuck is the difference? Wake up.

[Zeph]

What scares me the most is that this guy's potential changes to the constitution are so broad I agree with some of them and vehemently oppose others. A guy like this could have such a wide reach that pulls in too many votes from people who don't care to hear the whole story and only pay attention to the narrow view they like.

[Warsaw]

Well in America the president has more power over the congress than other countries that's why it's fine to use him as a scape goat in a discussion I guess :P

Or so most Americans believe, apparently. Ugh, too much stupid. I wouldn't say he has more power, just more influence. The President's sway on Congress is directly related to his approval rating, though. The lower his approval rating, the more Congress ignores him. That's the entire reason that every President has the "100 Days" thing, because that's when he's most popular. Then there's the whole "Commander and Chief" debacle. He can send troops in, but only Congress can declare war. Welp, what do you get when he sends troops in and doesn't get Congress to declare war? You get Iraq/Afghanistan. Yay. :v:

@Paladin: Fair enough, I was just checking. The tone of your last post almost sounded like it was accusing me of being two-faced and lambasting Bush while defending Obama. I don't discriminate: I support none and lambast all. :haw:

@Zeph: Yup. This guy is a power-hungry psychopath, but, unlike Palin, he is not insane.


Wake up.

Hence thread title, brosef. The whole democratic system has been fucked for a few decades now. It's one big circle-jerk.

[TVTyrant]

If Rick Perry wins I'm moving to Australia.

Not a joke.

[Warsaw]

I'm just gonna say fuck it and move to Europe, because Canada's current administration is no better and if I'm gonna be fucked I want to get some damn social benefits out of it. Also better phones than we get here.

[Kornman00]

Or you guys could just kill it with fire...

and by it I mean Perry

and by Perry I mean Rick

kill the gov'na

[=sw=warlord]

Vote for perry, he's never gonna give you, never gonna let you down and we won't run around you then desert you.

[Zeph]

Or you could vote for the most likely better democratic candidate.

[king_nothing_]

Or you could vote for the most likely better democratic candidate.
Uh, no thanks.

[Warsaw]

Or you could vote for the most likely better democratic candidate.

Not liable to happen. That said, anybody who makes the cut to run for President probably should not be running.

[Kornman00]

y n 1 leik ron paul :saddowns:?

[king_nothing_]

y n 1 leik ron paul :saddowns:?
I do, very much. :)

[sleepy1212]

I'm writing him in if he doesn't run third party.

[Rainbow Dash]

http://wonkette.com/451921/another-lesson-on-gays-and-booze-courtesy-of-rick-perry

lol

[king_nothing_]

I'm writing him in if he doesn't run third party.
Are you voting in the primary?

[sleepy1212]

Registered Independent.

We have to sit in the back.

[king_nothing_]

What state are you in? If your state has a closed primary, you should register Republican so you can vote for him, then just switch back to Independent afterwards. From what I've heard, it's not that difficult of a process.

[sleepy1212]

I registered on principle. I'd rather see Ron Paul run third party than vote for him while he's on the GOP leash.

[king_nothing_]

Eh...he's not on anyone's leash.

He's also said multiple times he's not running third party. If you want to get him in office, you need to temporarily register Republican (if your state requires it) and vote for him in the primary.

[Zeph]

I registered on principle. I'd rather see Ron Paul run third party than vote for him while he's on the GOP leash.

If he goes independent, he'll just pull votes away from the democratic candidate that needs them to beat the GOP. It looks like that'll happen because the GOP sponsored media seems to be completely ignoring him.

[king_nothing_]

He's not going to run independent.


the GOP sponsored media seems to be completely ignoring him.
It's not just the conservative media that's been ignoring him. After he came in second in the Ames Straw Poll by 9/10ths of one percentage point, he was waaaaay underreported by both the liberal and conservative mainstream media.

[Phopojijo]

It should be about now that I should note that left-right-centre are not just only one measure of a political ideology... they're not absolute even in that measure. For the most part our right-most political party in Canada is left of the Democrats (but obviously not always).

There is no definition of "centre", "left", or "right".

[king_nothing_]

It should be about now that I should note that left-right-centre are not just only one measure of a political ideology... they're not absolute even in that measure. For the most part our right-most political party in Canada is left of the Democrats (but obviously not always).

There is no definition of "centre", "left", or "right".
I would assume most people in here are aware of all that.

[Phopojijo]

You might be surprised.

Not here, but 35-50 year olds who should know better not only don't know that... but have argued with me over that in the past.

It seems to be a pretty stuck mentality in many that there's absolute measurements for "left", "right", or "centre". If not here, then awesome.

[TVTyrant]

Ron Paul is meh to me. His stance on deregulation makes me regurgitate.

[king_nothing_]

Ron Paul is meh to me. His stance on deregulation makes me regurgitate.
Please explain to me why you think more regulation (or the same amount we have now) is a good thing.

[TVTyrant]

Please explain to me why you think more regulation (or the same amount we have now) is a good thing.
Please explain to me how Laissez Faire capitolism is somehow a good thing. Or allowing people to exploit tax loopholes. Or decreasing public safety so a company can somehow profit.

[king_nothing_]

Please explain to me how Laissez Faire capitolism is somehow a good thing.
Why do you think our economy is going down the shitter? It's certainly not because of laissez-faire capitalism, because we don't have laissez-faire capitalism. It's a result of overregulation and too much oversight. "Too big to fail"? Stimulus packages? QE1? QE2? Artificially low interest rates? What good has any of that done? If they weren't so wrapped up in Keynesian economic thinking, we wouldn't be in this mess. It's ridiculous to think that a small group of people can efficiently control and steer an entire economy and monetary system. If they would leave it the hell alone, we wouldn't have the problems we have now.

[leorimolo]

You guys still believe in Bipartisanship?

Its bullshit guys, nothing going to ever change.

[Warsaw]

Please explain to me how Laissez Faire capitolism is somehow a good thing. Or allowing people to exploit tax loopholes. Or decreasing public safety so a company can somehow profit.

It's a good thing because when a business fails, it fails. Then all of the smaller competitors can pick up the pieces and some will survive to become big companies themselves. When they fail, the cycle repeats.

Most of the reason we need government regulation is because of government in the first place. If companies weren't allowed to protect their interests via legislation, the only recourse they would have to survive is to continue to innovate and provide quality products and services to the people. The only needs for government regulation that I can see is monopoly and actual trusts (read: corporate circle-jerking). Most of the "anti-trust" bullshit we see today is just someone butthurt that their competition has the capability and foresight to integrate vertically. You don't see the EU slapping Apple with an anti-trust suit for bundling Safari with OSX or manufacturing its own hardware, do you?

[Bodzilla]

you guys have terrible memory's
last i checked the banks folded because they where handing out foolish amounts of money to people that couldnt pay it back, thanks to a lack of regulation enforcing safe banking practices.
only thing is when they failed they fucked up most of the worlds retirement in the process.

are you seriously telling me that if you deregulate these people that it'll be better for us?
you've got to be fucking kidding me, all they'll do is do the same shitty practices for short term profits to appease idiot shareholders meanwhile fucking everyone else right in the down under, untill they eventually collapse again.

[Patrickssj6]

It seems to be a pretty stuck mentality in many that there's absolute measurements for "left", "right", or "centre".
There is never an absolute way of telling but over here our senate is divided from right to left and it's fine. Makes sense if you have 6 different political parties.

[Aerowyn]

Full Article Here (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html)
Alright, America. Now that we have a someone actually trying to pass this, it's time to start giving a shit. Discuss.

Yo, it's a great idea and all, but Rick Perry is insane, and there's no way I would vote for him ever.

Mainly because he also believes in things like this:

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AsTmg.vMrxYkDbWgmojER0ObCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTB2ZWV zdXN0BHBvcwMyBHNlYwNNZWRpYUJsb2dCb2R5QXNzZW1ibHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTNjcjc2OXZuBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDYTg5ZjQ4N2QtODcxYi0zYjYwLWI4YjctNzQ4MzUxOW ZiNzBkBHBzdGNhdANvcmlnaW5hbHN8dGhldGlja2V0BHB0A3N0 b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=0/SIG=14qbihk3a/EXP=1315567753/**http%3A//blogs.cbn.com/beltwaybuzz/archive/2011/08/04/perry-comfortable-with-support-of-marriage-abortion-constitutional-amendments.aspx). "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.
In an interview with The Ticket (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/understanding-rick-perry-views-states-rights-182814623.html) earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."

I'd maybe like to support a candidate who respects my right to reproductive freedom, and doesn't treat me like, you know, breeding chattel.

[sleepy1212]

If he goes independent, he'll just pull votes away from the democratic candidate that needs them to beat the GOP. It looks like that'll happen because the GOP sponsored media seems to be completely ignoring him.

So do the more liberal outlets.

I never thought about the possibility of him pulling needed votes from the DNC. If there was going to be a split I assumed it would be in the GOP. Isn't that why he won't run Independently?

I don't expect him to win with the GOP or as an Independent. I think he could pull a lot of votes, not enough to win, but maybe enough to realize that a third party is a doable thing. He's the right guy for a third party to latch on to right now. He has a huge following and a strong but different stance. Even though he won't be president this coming term I think success could be measured by 2016.

I had hopes for the Tea Party but that went in the shitter long before Fox realized there was a Tea Party, and then they did and it got even worse.


are you seriously telling me that if you deregulate these people that it'll be better for us?

Yes, because no one is proposing deregulation without also throwing out their backup profit system known as the taxpayer. This makes them not only liable for their own losses, but also to the shareholders and customers. they simply won't be able to take risks like trading in mortgage-backed securities.

If it weren't for current regulations these banks wouldn't be so heavily tied to our economy and fall off when they lose everything without massive system failure. The regulatory system we have now exists to enable profiteering by the federal government/corporation at our expense. It's precisely because of this bad relationship that our economy is under such stress.

[Zeph]

I never thought about the possibility of him pulling needed votes from the DNC.


Nader did a good job of that.

[Rainbow Dash]

You don't need less regulation, you need more regulation, and more regulation done PROPERLY.

[Zeph]

You don't need less regulation, you need more regulation, and more regulation done PROPERLY.

:facepalm:

[Warsaw]

you guys have terrible memory's
last i checked the banks folded because they where handing out foolish amounts of money to people that couldnt pay it back, thanks to a lack of regulation enforcing safe banking practices.
only thing is when they failed they fucked up most of the worlds retirement in the process.

are you seriously telling me that if you deregulate these people that it'll be better for us?
you've got to be fucking kidding me, all they'll do is do the same shitty practices for short term profits to appease idiot shareholders meanwhile fucking everyone else right in the down under, untill they eventually collapse again.

It doesn't matter why they folded. Businesses can and will make bad decisions sometimes. When it costs them their livelihood, that's their fault and they deserve to fold and get eaten up by the competition. The recession is the result of everyone putting all of their eggs in the one basket that fell. That's called stupid investing. The very fact that it had so much of an impact on the US economy tells me that it was one huge speculative circle-jerk in the first place; better it falls now than have it enter into another Depression later. Here's the problem: neither the Bush nor the Obama administration let them fall like they should have. So now we are riding on a patched-up ship that could capsize and sink with the slightest breeze.

@Patrickssj6: I wish people would get out of the "if you don't vote Democrat or Republican, your vote is wasted" mentality here. That way, we'd see some real competition in government.

@Aerowyn: But it's not a great idea. The Supreme Court doesn't need to be meddled with; giving Congress the power to override a ruling of constitutionality with a 2/3 majority? That basically eliminates the single most effective check on Congress. Removing the lifetime terms for Justices won't solve anything, it will just make it easier for parties to position more sympathetic individuals into power, making it easier for them to have the panel in their pocket. Yeah, Perry is dangerous.

[Bodzilla]

Yes, because no one is proposing deregulation without also throwing out their backup profit system known as the taxpayer. This makes them not only liable for their own losses, but also to the shareholders and customers. they simply won't be able to take risks like trading in mortgage-backed securities.
Have you ever heard of superannuation?

What your literally suggesting is deregulating the banks who will handle peoples literal life savings (directly or indirectly) so they can make more risky investments, and then if it fails you screw up peoples retirement funds and therefore force them onto the dole.... which is paid for by taxpayers.

or would you cut these people off as well and have millions in poverty.



You guys havnt learned a fucking thing, and it scares me.

[king_nothing_]

you guys have terrible memory's
last i checked the banks folded because they where handing out foolish amounts of money to people that couldnt pay it back, thanks to a lack of regulation enforcing safe banking practices.
only thing is when they failed they fucked up most of the worlds retirement in the process.

are you seriously telling me that if you deregulate these people that it'll be better for us?
It was government intervention that caused the housing bubble in the first place. The Fed kept interest rates artificially low for a long time which encouraged the malinvestment. It encouraged the risky loans. If they weren't manipulating the market conditions, it wouldn't have happened.

Also, government policies incited banks to lend to people who they normally would not because of risk. They encouraged home ownership for people who couldn't afford homes.

EDIT: On top of all that, the fact that they're "too big to fail" encourages excessive risk-taking as well. What's the point of risk-aversion when the government will just bail you out when you screw up, right? (moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard))

[Bodzilla]

you dont think that banks being able to give homeloans to people at repayment rates that where LOWER then the interest charged had nothing to do with it?
Stop fucking dreaming.

Banks arnt what will get you out of this recession, what will is infrastructure.

[Bodzilla]

They shouldnt be allowed to extort people like this in the first place, it's nto about not caring, it's about short term profits for long term sacrifice that came as a direct effect of deregulating the fucking banking system.

if you honestly think that if you dont bail them out they'll stop predatory lending practices your fucking Deluded.

[Warsaw]

you dont think that banks being able to give homeloans to people at repayment rates that where LOWER then the interest charged had nothing to do with it?
Stop fucking dreaming.

Banks arnt what will get you out of this recession, what will is infrastructure.

A business can and will make mistakes. Banks are businesses. They fucked up by giving homeloans to people at repayment rates that were lower than interest charged AND NOT CARING THAT THE CREDIT OF THE CUSTOMER WAS TOO LOW. They did that because the Fed (read: government regulation) encouraged them to do so. The only one dreaming here is you. The reason that everything crashed was because everyone invested in these banks, these banks which couldn't be trusted because they were too greedy and jumped on the opportunity the Fed gave them. When they suddenly found out that people couldn't pay the rates for the loans, they had to close up shop because they lost all their money. Because they lost their money, everybody who had something with them also lost money.


King_Nothing and sleepy are right. We have infrastructure, except it's too invasive. We know exactly what went wrong with the system. I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about when you say "banks arnt what will get you out of this recession," because nobody here is saying that. We're saying that government backing the fuck up out of economic manipulation will turn it around. The only regulation I want to see the US Federal Government do is slapping some taxes on Chinese imports.

Ninja'd by double post: They don't extort people in the first place. That's what we're saying. It was the federal government's manipulation that allowed and encouraged them to extort. And like I said, we're talking more about deregulating the economy; banks are not the entire economy by themselves. I don't think you honestly understand how economics works, let alone how it presently works in the United States.

[king_nothing_]

^ That.

[Rainbow Dash]

:facepalm:

Hey Zeph hows not having health care because it's a commodity going :3

[TVTyrant]

Bod, thank you for being a fucking intelligent person.

How does regulation have anything to do with the fucking bailouts? I don't agree with bailouts; I agree with making sure banks aren't lending to people who can't pay that money back though. Wall Street caused he economic collapse, not the government.

How will deregulation make it any better? It will just allow these fucking rich millionaires to fuck us all in the ass while we squabble over whether we should enact laws about it or not. It has more to do with people not doing their fucking jobs than it has to do with the laws in place.

I have to say, Selentic has the right idea.

[king_nothing_]

Did you make any effort to comprehend the previous posts at all?


I agree with making sure banks aren't lending to people who can't pay that money back though. Wall Street caused he economic collapse, not the government.
They both did, really, but the underlying cause was the government. The government actively encouraged them to do what they did. If the Fed wouldn't have manipulated the market conditions, the crisis wouldn't have happened. Please read the previous posts.

The entirety of your reasoning is "the banks screwed us, so we need to regulate the banks more to make things better". It's obvious you've made no effort to examine the issue any deeper than that. It's also obvious who in here is making the substantive arguments and who isn't.

[king_nothing_]

9S3lXDOQ7ec

[Rainbow Dash]

I can encourage you to take a gun and shoot up the nearest school, that doesn't change that it's a shitty decision and you should know better.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that deregulation is a terrible idea, there is no one right answer here, there are multiple things that could work out just fine, and that's definitely one of them. I'd just like to point out how completely fucking bat shit insane it is to scream REGULATION IS TERRIBLE WAH WAH based on the incredibly poor example of how it was done badly by your government in the past, and how it encouraged retards to make retarded decisions.

[TVTyrant]

The entirety of your reasoning is "the banks screwed us, so we need to regulate the banks more to make things better". It's obvious you've made no effort to examine the issue any deeper than that. It's also obvious who in here is making the substantive arguments and who isn't.

No, the entirety of my reasoning is rich people fucked us and have fucked everyone for centuries. I'm tired of the richest people in our country/world doing whatever they want while the rest of us suffer the consequences.

[Warsaw]

No, the entirety of my reasoning is rich people fucked us and have fucked everyone for centuries. I'm tired of the richest people in our country/world doing whatever they want while the rest of us suffer the consequences.

Logical fallacy here. Not all bankers are rich and not all rich people are bankers. What has been fucking people in the ass is not a lack of regulation, it's the complacency of the general public and an unwillingness to educate itself and vote accordingly. Welcome to America.

[Aerowyn]

Logical fallacy here. Not all bankers are rich and not all rich people are bankers. What has been fucking people in the ass is not a lack of regulation, it's the complacency of the general public and an unwillingness to educate itself and vote accordingly. Welcome to America.

I have a story about regulation for you.

Pennsylvania is the home of the Marcellus Shale, a nice big ol' natural gas reserve. A company from Texas has come in to extract this natural gas.

Their fracking waste has been getting into the state's water sources. I've driven behind a frack truck where the waste has literally been splashing out of the truck and onto the roads. There have been a lot of cases of FLAMMABLE TAP WATER due to these companies being completely irresponsible.

A LOT of people in the state are calling for regulation on these companies so they will stop polluting everything in sight... so, you know, we can all have clean air and drinking water. But Governor Corbett refuses to regulate or tax them for ANYTHING they do because "they might pack up and take their business elsewhere."

.... THEY CAN'T TAKE THEIR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE, THE MARCELLUS SHALE IS HERE IN PENNSYLVANIA!!!

You seem to think de-regulation is a great thing, that it will urge corporations to be responsible so they can keep their valued customers. We haven't regulated the Marcellus Shale companies, and look what they're doing to us--they are ravaging our state and its resources.

And we can't just "choose not to use their natural gas" because IT'S ALREADY TOO LATE FOR OUR WATER SUPPLY. They've already damaged things. Sure, I can not use their natural gas, but much of our water supply will be non-potable due to contamination by the fracking fluids.

Just wondering what exactly you don't get about some regulation being a good thing.

[Warsaw]

Easy fix: give the company an enticing-enough tax break for not polluting. It's not regulation we are against, per se. In case you hadn't noticed, the only time "regulation" gets used in the United States is if it lines somebody else's pockets, and that somebody else is never the general public. That "regulation" has gotten us into the mess we are in now. I don't need to show you proof, the result is already out there for all to see and it isn't getting any better. Everybody is so concerned with spending money we don't have to bail everybody out and preserve the current system that the economy isn't being allowed to rebuild itself into a stronger form.

Don't patronize me as if I'm not aware of what companies do and am just plugging my ears. Right now, the economy needs to be fixed and that takes precedence over ecological problems like that. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Get the big issue out of the way, then start the fine tuning.

[=sw=warlord]

What use is an economy if there is no population to make use of it?
If lack of regulation is the reason water supplies is getting poisoned then logic suggest that regulation should be used to punish irresponsible companies of falling short on their obligations.
That includes Banks.
You can't just give a child a candy when they're behaving good and expect that to form obedience and discipline, you need to be balanced and punish them when they're being beligerant.
Business is that child, you keep giving and giving, eventually you end up with irresponsible business because they've never felt the trauma of being told No.

[TVTyrant]

Logical fallacy here. Not all bankers are rich and not all rich people are bankers. What has been fucking people in the ass is not a lack of regulation, it's the complacency of the general public and an unwillingness to educate itself and vote accordingly. Welcome to America.
Bull fucking shit. The wealthy are the ones who own the banks. Their the ones who pushed people's credit around to each other. They are the ones who continue to borrow money. Look at the government. Every one of them is a millionaire at the least. Your full of shit if you think that the upper 2% aren't running the show.
Who buys the most stocks? Who sells the most stock? Who are the brokers, the politicians, the CEOs, the people who own the most land. The wealthy.


What use is an economy if there is no population to make use of it?
If lack of regulation is the reason water supplies is getting poisoned then logic suggest that regulation should be used to punish irresponsible companies of falling short on their obligations.
That includes Banks.
You can't just give a child a candy when they're behaving good and expect that to form obedience and discipline, you need to be balanced and punish them when they're being beligerant.
Business is that child, you keep giving and giving, eventually you end up with irresponsible business because they've never felt the trauma of being told No.

Thank you.

[Warsaw]

Warlord, that is a terrible analogy. I'm not suggesting we give them more money for being clean, I'm suggesting we let them keep the money they earn by giving them a break for being clean. If they aren't clean, we simply tax them harder. The problem here is that corporations have the power to lobby, and the only way to fix this is to make it illegal for companies to lobby directly or to support a lobbying group. And hell, we can still get taxes back out of a corporation by shifting the tax burden towards the wealthy end of the spectrum, that way the top earners of a corporation have to cough it up for the good of the rest of the country. I know this needs to be run. Even still, you say that as if the people around that plant are dying by the thousands on a daily basis and that there will be no more revenue stream within a year. Yes, it's terrible. Yes, it needs to be fixed. But like I said, this is an issue to be tuned once we get the economy rolling again. Hell, you guys over there should be anxious for the US economy to get back on its feet as well, because as I understand it our recession has affected you guys, too.

Oh, and only banks have never been told "No." Most other businesses know the limits, even telecoms. Bush fucked up, and Obama helped it along. Like I said, they should have let them crash. You and TVTyrant and Bod seem to be completely misinterpreting my sentiments.

@TVTyrant: If anybody is spewing nonsense right now it would be you, =sw=warlord, Aerowyn, and Bod. Apparently not a single one of you has any idea how the economy here in the USA works (despite a few of you living here), and you clearly do not understand how to fix the problem by working within the system. Nowhere did I say the upper 2% were not running the show. Nowhere did I say anybody was running any show at all. All I said that is within any range of that idea is that it is the voters' faults for being so goddamn apathetic towards government for so long, and now they are whining because they are getting ass-raped by corporations. Well, wake the fuck up, educate yourselves, and vote you tools. Write to senators, form a community interest group and lobby. Enough people form similar interest groups and lobby and the corporations have to yield. They may be powerful single entities, but WE are the source of their income. Their liquid cash reserves are greatly over-estimated by everybody. Also, vote with your wallets, too. Don't like the practises of a company or a bank? Don't buy their products or use their services. A fair and proper analogy, unlike =sw=warlord's, is that you guys' talking is EXACTLY like the Modern Warfare 2 hypocritical boycott but with real-world consequences.
You also clearly missed that statement by Warren Buffet earlier, where he said the current tax system is wrong and that most of the most wealthy individuals in America wouldn't really care if the tax bracket were shifted to focus on them, because they are still going to be making money.

tl;dr: the REAL problem isn't banks, or regulation; it's Congress. It's the lobbying and the incumbency rate and the apathy of the people towards influencing legislation. Fix Congress so it reflects the people, and the corporations will fall in line. However, before you can get people to start caring, you need to fix the economy. Presently, the best way to fix the economy is to give the companies and the investors confidence that everything will be ok, and the only way to do that is to let businesses be businesses and start turning a profit. They start turning a profit, they will think there are more markets to reach out to and will want to hire more people to meet demand. We need to let them start making money. The banks have learned their lesson for now, so we can let them be. Later on, start tightening the noose so people don't get screwed again.

[Rainbow Dash]

Easy fix: give the company an enticing-enough tax break for not polluting.


If the last 20 years have been any indication, companies would rather not spend money to make their equipment more environmentally friendly, and would instead prefer to deal with fines/taxes, which don't actually affect them much, since they can just increase the price of their product/service to make up the money they lose because of their irresponsibility.

[=sw=warlord]

@warsaw:
Explain how exactly being balanced in terms of ensuring good business ethics is a bad thing?
As I said, the analogy fits the situation perfectly, You cannot expect a business to act to guidelines without some form of punishment to coerce them into form.

You're assuming that an unregulated market would regulate itself, this has been proven time and time again that this is not the case.
The idea you seem to have is that a market without regulations, without pilots would somehow guide it self, it may well do, but the point of regulation is to ensure it moves in the preferred direction and not just slumping.
Blaming this recession on how the markets may or may not be regulated is futile, it's almost as though saying vehicles should never be driven/piloted by humans and should be left up to the vehicles own devices purely because one pilot had a bad experience.

Either you are extremely ignorant or too arrogant to realize this but everything needs some form of regulation, Business especially, I've seen business' being fined huge amounts simply for using simple practices which violate laws such as fly tipping.
Do you honestly think that if there were no regulations to abide by that these business' would actually regulate themselves?

a few examples of regulation:

Building standard code
Electrical installation safety code
Environmental waste code

Reasons for market regulation:

Ensure business' don't simply buy each other out resulting in no competition and one mega monopoly

Collective action/ public good

Professional conduct

Market reliability

When I say that regulation should be used to some extent, I don't mean bail outs, there is no business too big to fail, if it fails then something smaller will grow to take it's place, the business was complacent of the situation and failed to adapt appropriately and thus deserves failure, how ever bail outs are not the only form of regulating markets, you can for instance, tax imports, give subsidies for new business' which encourages more trading in areas where there previously was none to be had.
The list goes on, I would explain a little further but unfortunately I won't be around to see your response as I'm going to be pre-occupied else where for some time after today.

[sleepy1212]

I have a story about regulation for you.

Very few confirmed cases, lots of allegations...no proof. Many contaminated wells were already contaminated prior to drilling, largely because of poor mining practices, and methane infiltration has been common since the early 1900's. Of those confirmed cases, faulty well design and improper treatment were to blame. Both of which are currently regulated. I know this because the company I work has designed well sites, holding ponds, and consulted on treatment plants all of which are heavily permitted by EPA and DEP.

That said I don't agree with the idea to grid off the whole state and allow the gas companies free reign over private property.

[paladin]

I have a story about regulation for you.

Pennsylvania is the home of the Marcellus Shale, a nice big ol' natural gas reserve. A company from Texas has come in to extract this natural gas.

Their fracking waste has been getting into the state's water sources. I've driven behind a frack truck where the waste has literally been splashing out of the truck and onto the roads. There have been a lot of cases of FLAMMABLE TAP WATER due to these companies being completely irresponsible.

A LOT of people in the state are calling for regulation on these companies so they will stop polluting everything in sight... so, you know, we can all have clean air and drinking water. But Governor Corbett refuses to regulate or tax them for ANYTHING they do because "they might pack up and take their business elsewhere."

.... THEY CAN'T TAKE THEIR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE, THE MARCELLUS SHALE IS HERE IN PENNSYLVANIA!!!

You seem to think de-regulation is a great thing, that it will urge corporations to be responsible so they can keep their valued customers. We haven't regulated the Marcellus Shale companies, and look what they're doing to us--they are ravaging our state and its resources.

And we can't just "choose not to use their natural gas" because IT'S ALREADY TOO LATE FOR OUR WATER SUPPLY. They've already damaged things. Sure, I can not use their natural gas, but much of our water supply will be non-potable due to contamination by the fracking fluids.

Just wondering what exactly you don't get about some regulation being a good thing.

you cant use "I know a guy" or personal anecdotes in an argument.

Also, I didnt know Modacity had so many econ majors and specialists.

[Aerowyn]

you cant use "I know a guy" or personal anecdotes in an argument.

Also, I didnt know Modacity had so many econ majors and specialists.

This ain't the "Great Debate" subforum, means I can say whatever I want, deal with it. :realsmug:

On the related subject, kfjlkfhvoaaijsdkljaklkfdgjfkljglkrjajksdalflarblga rbl.

WJ_yQ02xwsM

[Masterz1337]

It's the internet man, everyone's an expert. Its why they have over 2k posts on a gaming forum. You want interesting discussion check out the CNN comments section.

[paladin]

I troll CNN, theres nor intelligence there.

[Pooky]

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8789/masterzderp.png