Why The American Government Is Falling Apart
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<div class="IPBDescription">in a microcosm</div> For christ's sake, if we can't even talk about the basic text of a bill in congress without partisan hackery, is there any hope of getting anything done?
<a href='http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/cianafloor/amendsidebyside.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/c...dsidebyside.pdf</a>
<a href='http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/cianafloor/amendsidebyside.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/c...dsidebyside.pdf</a>
Comments
Doubtful. However, I've seen nothing that leads me to believe it hasn't worked this way since inception. No chicken littles here.
No I don't "mean like" that. What are you getting at?
You're saying that a busdriver should be tried for unknowingly transporting a girl to another state in order for her to get an abortion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Doubtful. However, I've seen nothing that leads me to believe it hasn't worked this way since inception. No chicken littles here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this.
Is it acceptable? Apparently, considering it happens all the time.
Do I disagree with defining it in more literal terms for public notice? Not really.
Now, one scenario might be that someone has impregnated a minor and attempts to get her an abortion without notifying her parents/guardians. This bill would make transporting her across State borders a criminal offense. The description of a predator in the notice is narrow (the term is relative considering it could be a long time boyfriend) but not inaccurate. It is, however, an exploitable loophole.
One scenario might be that a sexual predator receives money through the tax cut. Therefore, if I am following you correctly, its accurate to characterize the bill as giving money to sexual predators?
Please, give me a break. This bill could affect the parents of someone trying to get an abortion, or their significant other, or some unwitting greyhound driver. Yet somehow, because one of these might be a sexual predator, we can characterize them all as sexual predators in the summary of the amendment? That's patently ridiculous.
er, rape?
er, rape? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What rapist would stick around to get the girl an abortion? Except maybe a date-rape, but then again insisting on an abortion would almost be like admitting to the crime.
Or at least, thats the logic being used by the people writing the summaries. I can't say for sure whether that logic is correct without reading the text of the original bill, which is not included in that link.
Or at least, thats the logic being used by the people writing the summaries. I can't say for sure whether that logic is correct without reading the text of the original bill, which is not included in that link. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see anything in the original bill referring to sexual predators and I don't see any comments about the bill referring to sexual predators:
<a href='http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00748:@@@L&summ2=m&' target='_blank'>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d1...8:@@@L&summ2=m&</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as I'm concerned, it's unenforceable in it's current form.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unenforceable? If the parents get wind of the abortion, then they can easily call up the cops and have anyone who helped the girl arrested. I don't see how it's unenforceable at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, these amendments create the inevitable "loopholes" present in any federal law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->In this case, at least, the loopholes are warranted. Why arrest a Greyhound bus driver for transporting a woman across state lines? Should Greyhound be required to ask every woman they carry aboard if they're going to have an abortion, just to be safe?
Democracy doesn't work when the two parties hate each other more than they wish to get stuff done...
Democracy doesn't work when the two parties hate each other more than they wish to get stuff done... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for Truth. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
That aside, I still have a substantial preference for one party over the other.
I'm still trying to figure out why this whole Greyhound bus driver thing is an issue when there are key descriptions that have the individual qualify... Like "knowing" and "helping" while knowing. A bus driver would have no clue that the individual is going for an abortion ( its not something commonly asked when boarding a bus ).
Democracy doesn't work when the two parties hate each other more than they wish to get stuff done... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
on the contrary, the last time the governemnt actually balanced a budget was due to a republican dominated congress and a democratic administration which forced eachother to check their ways.
democracy works because there is conflict in government, not the opposite.
now if you want to get into how corporate funding and the consolidation of money is leading to the destruction of the United States then I'm all for it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Look around and be wise, as the middle class continues to disappear Socialism will become a more and more tempting option for many americans. the only reason it didnt work prior to world war 2 in the states is that the middle class act as a buffer to total reform as they are neither here nor there, hence basically indifferent to change, but watch as times change....
you heard it here first, I predict socialism in the US by 2050, that is if the nation still exists.
/ontopic this is flipping retarded, about as retarded as the bill that would allow weather information to be exclusive to 2 or 3 companies. money and the lack of progessive laws will be the downfall of this country.
Also, there none of the 1st world countries are completely socialist. All of them have capitalist economies and all of them have socialist elements, to one degree or another.
I seriously doubt that the US will turn to socialism very far, for quite a while. As the demographics shift, socialism will start to look pretty crappy. Once the baby boomers die out, things may start to shift the other way.
<!--QuoteBegin-maniacripper+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (maniacripper)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->on the contrary, the last time the governemnt actually balanced a budget was due to a republican dominated congress and a democratic administration which forced eachother to check their ways.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it was more due to having a Democratic president, rather than the fact that one party didn't own both the legislative and executive branches.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...9-2005Apr1.html</a>
Democrats spend less money, get more taxes, and thus have lower deficits. Doesn't matter who controls Congress.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 1 2005, 02:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 1 2005, 02:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Democrats spend less money, get more taxes, and thus have lower deficits. Doesn't matter who controls Congress. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell that to California... <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well actually Republicans are supposed to be the ones advocating smaller governments and fiscal responsibility, while Democrats are supposed to spend a lot on social programs. However that's all gone out the window with this administration. The Terry Schiavo case was a perfect example; a Republican government 'normally' wouldn't want to get involved in things like that.
Well actually Republicans are supposed to be the ones advocating smaller governments and fiscal responsibility, while Democrats are supposed to spend a lot on social programs. However that's all gone out the window with this administration. The Terry Schiavo case was a perfect example; a Republican government 'normally' wouldn't want to get involved in things like that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It didn't start with Bush. The statistic was calculated from 1960, so if anything it started with the Eisenhower administration.
In general, I think that in American politics, the minority party leans more libertarian. Once that minority party actually gets into power, however, they can't resist intruding upon the personal lives of Americans. So, Republicans wouldn't have done anything with the Schiavo case back when the Democrats controlled Congress and/or the Presidency, but now that they have all three branches, they would (and did) do something with Schiavo.
Well actually Republicans are supposed to be the ones advocating smaller governments and fiscal responsibility, while Democrats are supposed to spend a lot on social programs. However that's all gone out the window with this administration. The Terry Schiavo case was a perfect example; a Republican government 'normally' wouldn't want to get involved in things like that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It didn't start with Bush. The statistic was calculated from 1960, so if anything it started with the Eisenhower administration.
In general, I think that in American politics, the minority party leans more libertarian. Once that minority party actually gets into power, however, they can't resist intruding upon the personal lives of Americans. So, Republicans wouldn't have done anything with the Schiavo case back when the Democrats controlled Congress and/or the Presidency, but now that they have all three branches, they would (and did) do something with Schiavo. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
An interesting thought; political ideology is defined by a party's relative power rather than concrete guidelines. I haven't had enough first-hand experience with politics to determine how accurate this is, but it definitely seems possible.