Thank You Democrats/Communist -US state wants to tax TVs, video games to fight fat

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

Nice response.

I have to disagree with you on the states rights issue though. Unfortunately, there are many areas of the country that wish to impose draconian practices on their citizens.

Even so, which is few and far between, any laws created by the state or local governments cannot be in direct violation of the US Constitution. Even in a fully Federalists system, states must still abide by they US Constitution.

There are also benefits to Federalism that those on the left would like, such as states having the right to allow and recognize same sex marriages

In fact, that was why the civil war was fought as you very well know, states rights.

True. Even so, Amending the Constitution would mean that even states that wanted to keep slavery legal would no longer be allowed to do so. Even under a full Federalists system, slaves states would still have to abide by the newly amended Constitution and give up slavery. The addition of the 14th Amendment which followed the Civil War would still have been added even if the war never occurred.

Anyone who has ever taken a math test knows there is prayer in school.

And you will find few who disagree with individuals expressing themselves and having a moment, after class, to do their thing.

True. But there have been many schools and districts that have forbidden such practice. Fortunately the courts have ruled in favor of the students.

However, fortunately, for the masses, the leaders have not been extreme enough to carry the agenda the Christian right has which is to do what I said in my previous answer.

More and more catering has been done for this group and one can only shudder the damage they could do should they continue the practice of changing the landscape of the supreme court.

I don't like the shift that the coservatives have made towards what is now labeled as "neocons" either. All in all, both Parties are actually moving more and more towards the left. What is really scary too me is the catering that the Dems have done to the left. Liberalism has been hijacked by leftism. Gone are the days of the JFK Liberal Democrats of the, "Ask not what you Country could do for you, but what you could do for you Country", and the understanding of supply side economics - lower taxes.

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." JFK

Now people elect politicians from both parties based on what these politicians would do for them.

I applaud you on your educative achievements and goals.

Thank you. And I applaud you for you kind words, your willingness to ask and seek information, even if it is direct opposition to your own philosophy and belief.

There is much we can agree on but sadly much we still disagree on.

True. We don't always have to agree, and am not trying to change your views either. Just getting a better understanding of the other side is a goal we all should strive for.

The Christian Right is taking over the Republican party and for all it's good will and effort, that scares people like me to death.

I don't think they have as much influence as you may think. The country as a whole is moving in a more progressive and secular direction.

I bet we can agree on illegal immigration. Again, see my previous paragraph.

If you believe that is a problem that needs to be addressed, then yes. Both Parties recognize it as a problem. It is how we solve it, to what extent, and what we do about those already here is where the differences lie.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Allin4greeN

Halftime... Nice to see Tom Petty.

Seems to me that shareholders are the "gatekeepers" capable of exerting influence on the CEO salary/benefits structure. Only a coalition of the largest percentage stakeholders would provide the kind of influence necessary for change, however. Worst case scenario? Perhaps the equivalent of corporate fiefdoms, that exist to serve only or primarily the interests of the CEO lord.

Next question then becomes, will the company be very successful in the long run if the CEO's put themselves ahead of the company's best interest?

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Even so, which is few and far between, any laws created by the state or local governments cannot be in direct violation of the US Constitution. Even in a fully Federalists system, states must still abide by they US Constitution.

There are also benefits to Federalism that those on the left would like, such as states having the right to allow and recognize same sex marriages

True. Even so, Amending the Constitution would mean that even states that wanted to keep slavery legal would no longer be allowed to do so. Even under a full Federalists system, slaves states would still have to abide by the newly amended Constitution and give up slavery. The addition of the 14th Amendment which followed the Civil War would still have been added even if the war never occurred.



True. But there have been many schools and districts that have forbidden such practice. Fortunately the courts have ruled in favor of the students.


I don't like the shift that the coservatives have made towards what is now labeled as "neocons" either. All in all, both Parties are actually moving more and more towards the left. What is really scary too me is the catering that the Dems have done to the left. Liberalism has been hijacked by leftism. Gone are the days of the JFK Liberal Democrats of the, "Ask not what you Country could do for you, but what you could do for you Country", and the understanding of supply side economics - lower taxes.

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." JFK

Now people elect politicians from both parties based on what these politicians would do for them.

Thank you. And I applaud you for you kind words, your willingness to ask and seek information, even if it is direct opposition to your own philosophy and belief.

True. We don't always have to agree, and am not trying to change your views either. Just getting a better understanding of the other side is a goal we all should strive for.

I don't think they have as much influence as you may think. The country as a whole is moving in a more progressive and secular direction.

If you believe that is a problem that needs to be addressed, then yes. Both Parties recognize it as a problem. It is how we solve it, to what extent, and what we do about those already here is where the differences lie.

Nice post King. There are a lot of things we can agree with.

Especially the part about the deficit and taxes, etc.

If I were King, I would remove all our troops from foreign soil and close the bases.

I know that may not be popular but I can't see a need for troops in Korea after 50 years and troops in Germany after 60.

The Koreas should be left to decide their own fate and Germany is no longer a threat or do they not know that?

As far as illegal immigration, we are not doing enough to punish those that provide jobs and stopping the stem.

I am not for amnesty but find it inconceivable to be able to deport 13 million or so people.

They come here because there are no jobs and hope in Mexico.

Therefore, put pressure on Mexico to take care of their own people.

I would rather we invaded Mexico then Iraq. At least I could see a benefit.

I know, controversial and from a liberal but I don't think Mexico is doing enough and why should it?

It is reaping the benfits of it's poorest of the poor and uneducated coming here and sending money back and they don't have to worry about a revolution since the 13 million people army is here living a better life.

[Allin4greeN]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Next question then becomes, will the company be very successful in the long run if the CEO's put themselves ahead of the company's best interest?

I see your point and agree that a CEO who runs a fiefdom could only survive as long as the bottom line were not negatively impacted. Perhaps if we used the deficit as a metric to represent the country's bottom line, one could argue that our CEO's and board of directors have not done a very good job at leading the country. I imagine that it's difficult to draw straight line analogies between corporate models and a representative government, however. For me anyway, this is the case, it's not my area of expertise.

I have to admit to playing a bit of a devil's advocate role with my responses, because I like to see where a line of thought leads, and others appeared unwilling to venture in. My grad program involved quite a bit of debating administrative issues in higher ed. I always enjoyed taking a side that I didn't necessarily agree with. Kinda like "putting one's faith to the test", if you will

[rbinck]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

I am not for amnesty but find it inconceivable to be able to deport 13 million or so people.

Why not? Mexico sent them all up here.

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by rbinck

Why not? Mexico sent them all up here.

Well if we could, send them back!

However, I just can't see the logistics in undertaking such a massive task.

However, you must take the benefit of coming here and here is how.

Please forward to any politician who will listen.

1. Children of illegal immigrants will not be granted automatic citizenship.

2. Proof of citizenship is required for enrollment in schools.

3. Proof of citizenship is required for employment with heavy fines and penalties to employers who do not comply.

4. Proof of citizenship is required for any kind of government assistance, state or federal. No Medi Cal, in home support services, Medicare, nothing.

5. Illegal immigrants caught in the US will serve 2 years in prison. After all, they are committing a crime. A second offense will be more severe.

Why such tough talk? It is obvious, 13 million illegal immigrants here in this country.

They get free education and health care and their children compete with ours for jobs.

Many commit crimes. Many drain other state and government resources.

If you remove the benefits and make it unattractive to come here, you can stem the tide.

Most important, Mexico must change it's practice of dealing with it's people and the US must exert pressure on them to do so.

If we are serious about illegal immigration we must be willing to get tough to stop it.

Unfortunately, many city and state laws are having difficulties with enforcement because it is the federal government's role to stop it.

Well then, stop it. I just gave you some good ways to do it.

[junehhan]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

Regulation has it's merits. And, one can't be the voice for big business and get any sympathy from the general public.

Just this week Exxon recorded the highest profit ever for any kind of business. This in the face of higher gas prices and tax incentives.

Sorry, but profit is good and is a motivating factor in any capitalist economy. If there is money to be made, they will find ways to innovate and make even more money. A good example is how these firms are currently designing and coming up with ways and technology to access and refine oil that previously was not accessible or refinable at the previous price points. Look at how important Canada's oil sands reserves are becoming as the high price of oil has all of a sudden made something profitable, that was previously not profitable. This has been argued many times, and the oil industry makes the smallest margins of any industry on the market. They make a margin of roughly 9 cents per gallon for every gallon of petrol/diesel that they sell. They only record such profits due to the fact that demand for their product in incredible, and it is sheer volume that is driving profits, not margins that are driving profits. If they are making 9 cents per gallon, taking profit out of the equation would mean that petrol would be $3.01 instead of $3.10 a gallon.

Left unchecked, businesses would exploit the environment and the people as well.

I think we all agree that some regulation is definately required for society. The disagreement is over how much. Look at what runaway unregulated buisnesses are doing to China, which is a country that is arguably more capitalistic now than we were 100 years ago. The kind of harm and neglect they are doing will have incredible consequences.

I find it outrageous this great country cannot find alternative means to the oil and gas engines that run our vehicles.

Perhaps it is because nothing else provices the kind of energy per volume content that oil derived fuels such as petrol and diesel are capable of providing. This is something that hasn't been looked at until recently simply because alternative fuel research just wasn't profitable when petrol and diesel were historically so cheap in this country. Now that prices have risen, research is currently underway with some promising discoveries. Here is a recent discovery in the production on ethanol from non food sources

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/new.../01/ethanol23#

I also understand that advances are being made in finding new ways to produce Hydrogen with reduced energy needs. The market has a unique way creating advances in technology to address social problems, but only if it becomes profitable to do so. If there is money to be made, someone will make it. This is partially why green research is currently advancing as that industry has all of a sudden become profitable.


I believe they can. I believe it is the powerful oil and automaking businesses that have kept this at bay.

Possibly, as politicians are nothing but a bunch of crooked shanks who support no cause other than what is given to them in the form of checks. I have always been a big advocate of finding ways to take special interests out of politics, because we as consumers WILL suffer

Lack of regulation of the auto industry has also allowed for gas guzzling SUVs and other vehicles to dominate the industry.

Not the lack of regulation, but this is simply what people have preferred. Out country is much different in that we have higher incomes, vast open spaces, historically cheap fuel(still cheap by world standards, and by real costs compared to nominal costs). We also have a different lifestyle here, which is why cars sold here have gotten bigger and bigger. Subcompacts are only making a return due to the high costs of fuel. Let the laws of economics regulate, as it is surprisingly efficient. People will only buy products if it makes economic sense as each person is in reality their own rationale economic agent. Just because you force small cars on people through regulations, doesn't mean people will buy it.

One can say they are catering to the people but lets not be stupid.

The people can be duped, lied to and taken advantage of.

Which is why i'm definately for further campaign finance reform

Don't think so? Look at supersizing of our food industry.

We are creating a generation of fat people who will have more health problems and die sooner.

A coke at Mcdonalds is 49 cents for 60 oz. Now tell me, who needs a 60 oz coke?

McDonald's no longer sells supersized portions, and their healthy lineup of salads are surprisingly profitable.

How about the 6 dollar burger? Or the 8 pieces of bacon in Wendy's burger?

The Baconator? I actually tried it and was disappointed. If people want it, they will make it. The firms are only responding to what people want. Look throughout the world as while America is known for festively plump people, countries like Germany and other parts of Europe are seeing the fastest growth in plumpness of their people in history.

Supersize is encouraged and the people believe it to be safe.

Give the customer what he wants? Sure.

Better yet, educate the customer.

My philosophy, educate, but let them choose. When you resort to telling them what they can and can't do, that is what borders on fascism and what I have a problem with.

Oh, and, talk radio and right wing garbage? Again, there is so much of it bombarding the air waves people start believing it.

You arn't mentioning the left wing bias in every media outlet other than talk radio! There is a reason why talk radio is surprisingly conservative, because maybe people are tired of media outlets trying to tell them what and how to think. Why is it that nearly every liberal talk radio on the AM stations has failed?

The tactic is fear mongering and hate.

Watch out for the gay agenda. All Mexicans are illegals and they will take what you have.

The Bush administration is moral and honest.

Hey, all politicians are moral and honest?

You lie and lie and lie and sadly, people believe it when they hear it over and over again.

Which is why I belong to neither of the majour parties, and why politics are quickly becoming dispicable.

That's the reality.

Well, i'm pretty swamped right now, so it will probably be a while before I can get back and post some more...........

[junehhan]

Ouu, i'd love the respond to this, but i'm out of my allotted time for now. Surprisingly, I agree a lot with what you have to say.

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

Well if we could, send them back!

However, I just can't see the logistics in undertaking such a massive task.

However, you must take the benefit of coming here and here is how.

Please forward to any politician who will listen.

1. Children of illegal immigrants will not be granted automatic citizenship.

2. Proof of citizenship is required for enrollment in schools.

3. Proof of citizenship is required for employment with heavy fines and penalties to employers who do not comply.

4. Proof of citizenship is required for any kind of government assistance, state or federal. No Medi Cal, in home support services, Medicare, nothing.

5. Illegal immigrants caught in the US will serve 2 years in prison. After all, they are committing a crime. A second offense will be more severe.

Why such tough talk? It is obvious, 13 million illegal immigrants here in this country.

They get free education and health care and their children compete with ours for jobs.

Many commit crimes. Many drain other state and government resources.

If you remove the benefits and make it unattractive to come here, you can stem the tide.

Most important, Mexico must change it's practice of dealing with it's people and the US must exert pressure on them to do so.

If we are serious about illegal immigration we must be willing to get tough to stop it.

Unfortunately, many city and state laws are having difficulties with enforcement because it is the federal government's role to stop it.

Well then, stop it. I just gave you some good ways to do it.

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by junehhan

Well, i'm pretty swamped right now, so it will probably be a while before I can get back and post some more...........

Not you again?

Come on. Nobody wants to read a thesis on a internet site.

Keep it short, easy to read and simple.

On the positive side, you were at least civil.

PS: There are many who feel compelled to take someone's post, break it down and put their spin into.

Usually the response is so large, nobody can digest and respond in kind. At least, not this guy.

Again, keep it short and simple. We are here to have fun, exchange barbs and make friends.

At least, I am.

For those who read my posts, read them and I mean read them.

More often then not, they speak the truth. No spin, no crap, the truth.

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by junehhan

Ouu, i'd love the respond to this, but i'm out of my allotted time for now. Surprisingly, I agree a lot with what you have to say.

Hooray! Maybe I am making a friend!

[rbinck]

The issue that comes to mind when the idea of sending them back is immediacy by most people. What I meant by Mexico sending them all here is obviously Mexico didn't round them up and ship them north. No their economic situation made them gravitate north slowly over time.

Pistol: You put forth the formula for sending them back. Make the ability and incentive to be here illegally not work for them and they will send themselves back.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by rbinck

The issue that comes to mind when the idea of sending them back is immediacy by most people. What I meant by Mexico sending them all here is obviously Mexico didn't round them up and ship them north. No their economic situation made them gravitate north slowly over time.

Pistol: You put forth the formula for sending them back. Make the ability and incentive to be here illegally not work for them and they will send themselves back.

i.e. elimination of free services and punishment to those that employ them (so much so that they don't employ them).

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Allin4greeN

I see your point and agree that a CEO who runs a fiefdom could only survive as long as the bottom line were not negatively impacted. Perhaps if we used the deficit as a metric to represent the country's bottom line, one could argue that our CEO's and board of directors have not done a very good job at leading the country. I imagine that it's difficult to draw straight line analogies between corporate models and a representative government, however. For me anyway, this is the case, it's not my area of expertise.

I have to admit to playing a bit of a devil's advocate role with my responses, because I like to see where a line of thought leads, and others appeared unwilling to venture in. My grad program involved quite a bit of debating administrative issues in higher ed. I always enjoyed taking a side that I didn't necessarily agree with. Kinda like "putting one's faith to the test", if you will

I guess the teacher in me and my belief in a Constructivist Socratic approach to education, leads me to constantly ask open ended questions in order to stimulate debate.

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

i.e. elimination of free services and punishment to those that employ them (so much so that they don't employ them).

The first is inhumane and I can't agree with it. (and its not the reason they come here)

The second is all that is required to stop the illegal immigration problem. Enforce our laws: crack down on businesses who are paying illegals less than minimum wage. And I mean really enforce it. Like no explosives on an airplane enforcement. If businesses aren't allowed to play slave wages without consequence, there is no reason to hire an illegal immigrant over an American citizen. If businesses aren't hiring undocumented workers, the demand for slave labor in our country evaporates. If the demand is gone, so goes the supply of undocumented workers. Problem solved. Nobody deported, nobody denied basic health services in the case of an emergency

[Allin4greeN]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

The first is inhumane and I can't agree with it. (and its not the reason they come here)...

It's possible that it's not the primary reason that they travel here but, I'd be interested in seeing a study that indicates why they do... This article suggests some reasons without providing any hard data/numbers.

Originally Posted by Center for Immigration Studies

...The United States affords a stable political system, a legal system based on the rule of law, broad individual liberty and economic opportunity, a sound economy, and generous government welfare entitlements, in addition to extremely generous private charity. America is relatively free of public corruption and offers a safe, secure place to live. By comparison to many places, would-be immigrants may view the United States as a land of vast wealth where the streets are seemingly paved with 14-karat gold...

Originally Posted by Ntruder

...The second is all that is required to stop the illegal immigration problem. Enforce our laws: crack down on businesses who are paying illegals less than minimum wage. And I mean really enforce it. Like no explosives on an airplane enforcement. If businesses aren't allowed to play slave wages without consequence, there is no reason to hire an illegal immigrant over an American citizen. If businesses aren't hiring undocumented workers, the demand for slave labor in our country evaporates. If the demand is gone, so goes the supply of undocumented workers. Problem solved. Nobody deported, nobody denied basic health services in the case of an emergency

Here's a draft of what you're suggesting. As a municipal ordinance, it didn't hold up well under Federal scrutiny, though. Washington got a bit uppity about being "usurped", plus, there were some aspects of it that prompted the response it got, perhaps rightfully so. Interestingly, the Hazelton legislation created quite a bit of controversy throughout the state of PA, and solidified the mayor's position for a Congressional run.

BTW, I'm using a state specific example only to illustrate a point, not trying to derail the discussion

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

I guess the teacher in me and my belief in a Constructivist Socratic approach to education, leads me to constantly ask open ended questions in order to stimulate debate.

Seems like we have something else in common. I also appreciate a shared learning mode. Certainly doesn't work in all instances but, when it does, can deliver excellent results.