US government shuts down after Congress fails to pass funding bill

[Vitalius]

You see, that's the problem I have with USA culture: why would word "black" be an offensive word? What should I describe my black classmate's race in University? African-British? What if they're not British? Should I asking their nationality every time I meet new friend who is black?

 

If word "black" is indeed racially insensitive and offensive, then I shall declare that the word "yellow" is too, racially insensitive and offensive, because I'm an Asian, and my skin colour is yellow.

 

I wouldn't even tell you that during my time in secondary school, I insist my Muslim friends to call me "Chigga", since the N-word is such an forbidden word.

I agree with this. Americans (who are sensitive to calling black people black) would say yes. African-British, like our African-American.

I'll just call them black. Because that's what I do. Not care and do what I want because I personally view the way someone takes a word as "their fault". In other words, if I don't say the word with hateful intent, and they give it hateful intent and call it racist, that's on them and I don't care because it's absurd for me to change how I talk about people see imaginary slights in it. 

People may disagree with that. Tis life.

 

Not necessarily one-party, but if the results of elections are always the same then it takes a very large group of voters changing their minds to change the political landscape. Regardless, it certainly can be bad.

 

But it has gone against the popular vote, if only 3 times, in 1876, 1888, and 2000. That's a small error rate (3/57 ~= 5%), but it shouldn't happen at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Irrelevancy_of_national_popular_vote (search for "Irrelevancy of national popular vote")

Agreed. 

... Why does the Electoral College exist again? ... Oh right. Because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the uneducated masses to vote in a President. 

I didn't know that about the Electoral College. I was just going based on what my teacher said regarding that. Apparently he was wrong. *immediately begins to question everything he ever taught*

*sigh*, my point is proven though. My vote is meaningless. Not just because I'm in Texas, but because the system isn't built to be for the people. The United States of America, the biggest masquerade of them all.

 

A result of the present functionality of the Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the election. Since the national popular vote is irrelevant, both voters and candidates are assumed to base their campaign strategies around the existence of the Electoral College; any close race has candidates campaigning to maximize electoral votes by capturing coveted swing states, not to maximize national popular vote totals.

[Kuzma]

I agree with this. Americans (who are sensitive to calling black people black) would say yes. African-British, like our African-American.

I'll just call them black. Because that's what I do. Not care and do what I want because I personally view the way someone takes a word as "their fault". In other words, if I don't say the word with hateful intent, and they give it hateful intent and call it racist, that's on them and I don't care because it's absurd for me to change how I talk about people see imaginary slights in it. 

People may disagree with that. Tis life.

 

Agreed. 

... Why does the Electoral College exist again? ... Oh right. Because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the uneducated masses to vote in a President. 

I didn't know that about the Electoral College. I was just going based on what my teacher said regarding that. Apparently he was wrong. *immediately begins to question everything he ever taught*

*sigh*, my point is proven though. My vote is meaningless. Not just because I'm in Texas, but because the system isn't built to be for the people. The United States of America, the biggest masquerade of them all.

It really isn't built for the people, just look at this situation where getting their own way is more important than the people.

[DelFang]

,,, Wait til you hit the massive walls of text I wrote. Have fun. Don't get lost.

 

Been on this thread since 14:00, it's now 17:35. It has been a fun ride, sadly I've reach the end, and man oh man, you can talk. :Thumb

 

 

 One truly hopes you're being ironic

 

The part about China? No, it has been like that for a long long time;

 

The part about 'Murica? That depends on how you take it.

 

 

Upon finish reading the thread, I have one more thing to say: LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! :flying-kiss

[Mooshi]

TL;DR at the bottom. Don't reply to my post if you only read that though. If you have no time to read all that I have to say, I don't have time to read what you have to say. Knowing this, I would consider any reply based on TL;DR spam as it has no purpose.

 

I'll be honest, I prefer to think I am a little bit (just a tiny bit) close to the middle. I have more "conservative" views on most issues than "liberal" ones and I say it that way because I don't know what the terms mean anymore (for example, my Mom was very conservative, but when I asked what "we were", she said Democrat, which apparently isn't the conservative party anymore. Flip Flops like that make me go "Why even try to label ourselves?"). 

 

Fair enough, but I consider it infinitely better than the current state of things myself. I'd rather have an active nation that was willing to tear itself in two over issues rather than a complacent one that would be fine going silently into that sweet night (play quote used here, means "dies without fighting back" basically).

This is one of those things that I am conservative about. I don't like the idea of teaching a nation they deserve things without earning them. Food, water, air, and shelter, sure, that's fine. Everyone needs and deserves that because they are life and life is precious. 

When I listen to my step-brother (who is a druggie) complain about how his friends, who are pretty much just like him in most regards, can get $800 a pay check from Welfare for basically "Existing" and not much else, I tend to think somethings wrong with the current state of things.

An example of where I see my earlier comment in society (the thing about dying without fighting back) is, again, from my step-brother. He is the "good guy druggie" basically. He has the personal will power to not be addicted to anything (he freely admits to me he's tried just about all of it except heroin and things of that nature, i.e. meth), and to have a job (most of the time). He voted for Obama because he wanted weed to be legal. He thought Obamacare was nice, but that was his schtick during the elections.

I look at him in that, and try and imagine how many people are just like him. Who vote for such minute issues and directly influence the nation's course for such petty things. Mind you, he doesn't want a free ride, but to put his decision in perspective, he now is very against Obama. Not just because weed isn't legal in Texas yet, but for other reasons too (I hope, I'm not willing to listen to him long enough to know them, I just know he has them). 

I personally would be fine with there being a law passed to where you could not vote in an election if you could not prove you had a job, or something (considered legitimate) to prove you had a reason not to. You lost your leg? You can vote. You pregnant and on maternity leave? You can vote. Spouse works, but you are stay at home [insert title]? You can vote. No job and no excuse? You can't vote. 

There are probably (good) reasons that doesn't exist, but until I know them I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be that way. I just don't like the idea that passions and very temporary issues are what decides who is President (or congressman/etc) like immigration, legalizing weed, etc etc. 

The other thing I have noticed is that only old people actually vote in the more minor elections (at least where I live, and that makes sense to me that it would be true everywhere). Yeah, there may be a young person doing it every now and then, but it's the old people who end up deciding it by the sheer numbers of them. To give an example of this, I was taught a Government class by a former Mayor of the town the college was in. He explained the minute details of the city to us. In how most of the people who went to have a community vote on city specific issues (and elections for mayor and the like) were mostly people near retirement age.

Obviously, it could be different where you live, but the reasons that is the situation, in my mind, are ones that are universal (i.e. old people are affected a lot more by these things being discussed, most of the of time, they have more free time to vote on them, and there are more of them, plus they come from a time where being an active part of your community was the norm, rather than the exception). 

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme developed by the Congressmen of the day it was made. It was to be temporary. This was understood only by those who made it. Everyone else kept it. And this is not good. Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare cost far more money than they are worth. I realize I'm talking about something that decides whether many people live or die due to funds related to healthcare. However, you have to realize that these programs, and health insurance in general, are the very reason healthcare in the US is expensive. 

Example of that: If I pay for a doctor's bill with cash, I pay anywhere from 10-50% of what Insurance or one of those social programs would pay. They gouge them. So horribly. It is absurd. Healthcare could be cheaper/more affordable if it weren't for the idea of insurance (which is another Ponzi Scheme in my eyes, but for different reasons than Social Security), and these social programs.

All that to say, I don't like the current situation our country is in. I don't like teaching people they deserve something (and a lot, at that) for nothing. They do deserve the basics of life and what is necessary to be a legitimate voter (i.e. access to information, but only if the "only allowed to vote if you work" thing is true), but far too much is given without good reason in my eyes. Anything that does this, no matter what it claims as it's benefits, is far more evil to me than the evil it is trying to fight. Various examples being the many social programs the US government has (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the coming Obamacare, etc). 

The reason for this is based on my knowledge of psychology from college and my experiences in life. It is infinitely harder to remove from a people (as a whole) a detrimental attitude (such as the "I exist, therefore I deserve things.") than it is to avoid teaching such an attitude. Rights and the basic necessities of life (that I previously mentioned) are obviously things people do deserve for existing. All the stuff on top of that isn't as far as I am concerned.

An example of such things is an extreme one from another country but it's just to show what I mean: Guatemala says Internet is a right. Something everyone must have access to. I can understand "access to information" being a right, but just straight up "the entire internet"? No. That's stupid for various reasons. 

People will disagree with me. That is the nature of the topics I discussed and I am fine with that. I have yet to find a reason to change my mind. People "needing" Social Security and the other various social programs, as well as the people who have paid into Social Security and want their money back, haven't changed my mind either. 

Just to clarify one last thing before the horribly long post is done, we won't have those social programs for long. Either they will be completely abolished, or vastly cut back. We have no other choice. I could explain why, but to keep this post as short as possible, I won't. PM me if you want an in depth explanation of why. Or I will just post it here if enough people are interested.

TL;DR:

Basically, social programs are evil, and little can convince me otherwise. I give reasons in the long post above, so don't just flame me for saying that if you didn't bother to read my whole post. People need to be more, and stay, involved in the issues of our nation, and we won't have said social programs for much longer. I personally think you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you don't have a job, or a legitimate reason to not have one. Again, reasons and context in the above long post. I'd prefer you read it instead of this.

 

 

 

I'll keep this short and simple.

 

I see what you are saying and agree for the most part. The thing is, I do believe in certain exceptions.

 

For example, some ghetto queen having babies for the sake of milking the government teat because more children equates to more cash..that shit needs to stop ASAP. I'll take it a step further and make it be a mandatory "fixing" if someone is abusing the system like that. -- On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'll use my cousin. This is a man that has worked since the age of 8 and has worked all his life. He started suffering from kidney failure later in life and because of the way healthcare is and all that, he does get medicare and stuff, but he isn't a freeloader by any stretch of the imagination. To top it off, Obamacare is taking even more out of his pay which is disgusting. If healthcare were actually affordable, I don't see my cousin even needing company/government ran scheme of "health insurance"/social programs. He'd rather pay for this himself but can't because of how much is being bled from him thanks to the government. It's like the government has a firm grip on society to force them to be dependent on them whether people want to or not.

[Vitalius]

I'll keep this short and simple.

 

I see what you are saying and agree for the most part. The thing is, I do believe in certain exceptions.

 

For example, some ghetto queen having babies for the sake of milking the government teat because more children equates to more cash..that shit needs to stop ASAP. I'll take it a step further and make it be a mandatory "fixing" if someone is abusing the system like that. -- On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'll use my cousin. This is a man that has worked since the age of 8 and has worked all his life. He started suffering from kidney failure later in life and because of the way healthcare is and all that, he does get medicare and stuff, but he isn't a freeloader by any stretch of the imagination. To top it off, Obamacare is taking even more out of his pay which is disgusting. If healthcare were actually affordable, I don't see my cousin even needing company/government ran scheme of "health insurance"/social programs. He'd rather pay for this himself but can't because of how much is being bled from him thanks to the government. It's like the government has a firm grip on society to force them to be dependent on them whether people want to or not.

I don't understand what you mean by "certain exceptions" then. It seems you fully agree with me. If they didn't exist, he would have had more money to save and now he would have plenty to keep him going as healthcare would be cheaper too.

... Confused as to where the "exceptions" part comes in.

The reason I see no argument for the other side, the side where the people who actually need it are (like your cousin), is because, if said social programs didn't exist, they would have more money, and healthcare would be cheaper. Meaning they wouldn't need the government programs to begin with. 

Of course that's assuming we find some setup for healthcare that avoids all the aforementioned problems, but still. 

[Mooshi]

I don't understand what you mean by "certain exceptions" then. It seems you fully agree with me. If they didn't exist, he would have had more money to save and now he would have plenty to keep him going as healthcare would be cheaper too.

... Confused as to where the "exceptions" part comes in.

The reason I see no argument for the other side, the side where the people who actually need it are (like your cousin), is because, if said social programs didn't exist, they would have more money, and healthcare would be cheaper. Meaning they wouldn't need the government programs to begin with. 

Of course that's assuming we find some setup for healthcare that avoids all the aforementioned problems, but still. 

 

 

I guess the exception is a bit of a trick question of sorts. Yes, he's on medicare and stuff for health reasons and that's a social service. At the same time, other social services are bleeding him dry..man, our health system and such sure is messed up in this country, isn't it?

[Vitalius]

I guess the exception is a bit of a trick question of sorts. Yes, he's on medicare and stuff for health reasons and that's a social service. At the same time, other social services are bleeding him dry..man, our health system and such sure is messed up in this country, isn't it?

Yes. You get it. He wouldn't need the Medicare if it didn't exist. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? It's like that. Only different in what it deals with but effectively the same.

[DirkaFat]

I don't mind heated debates so long as it progresses or serves the argument in some way. If it no longer serves a purpose other than to cause annoyance or aggravate I think it's better for everyone to just back out. If it resolves itself, as it did here, then I won't. I know I'd rather not have the grief, and I suspect this is the same for other people

You don't have to block people to stop a debate.

[Slaeowulf]

You don't have to block people to stop a debate.

 

Correct, I choose to. 

[DirkaFat]

Correct, I choose to. 

Why?

[911^NEmeSis]

Just one question, why is this under Tech News and Reviews? Government review.

[nicehat]

I wanna rage hard, but I can't. I'm all raged out from this headache inducing topic. It's especially irritating when someone posts with a far leftist post or far right for that matter.

 

To put things in perspective what Obamacare is actually doing for those who can't grasp how wrong it is to force something that can't be funded down American throats AND how anti-constitutional it is (just because something becomes law doesn't mean it became law by being bound by the very laws the country was founded under), I might have a way to word it.

 

 

me me, ME, ME! ! ! ! Pick ME! 

 

I dont know and cant grasp how wrong it is to force this law that cant be funded down our collective throats! Can you post a link from Factcheck.org to help me out?

 

And for the BIGGEST Illumination that this country has EVER witnessed, Mooshi will now tell us all how, even though the most Supreme Court of this land found the Affordable Health Care Act constitutional, it is in fact UNconstitutional. I am SURE that even a morsal of Mooshi's plethora of knowledge of Constitutional Law is infinitely larger and deeper than the likes and minds of established Supreme Court Justices like Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan. 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give way to the ultimate armchair policy czar and Constitutional Guru, MOOSHI ! ! ! ! 

[Mooshi]

me me, ME, ME! ! ! ! Pick ME! 

 

I dont know and cant grasp how wrong it is to force this law that cant be funded down our collective throats! Can you post a link from Factcheck.org to help me out?

 

And for the BIGGEST Illumination that this country has EVER witnessed, Mooshi will now tell us all how, even though the most Supreme Court of this land found the Affordable Health Care Act constitutional, it is in fact UNconstitutional. I am SURE that even a morsal of Mooshi's plethora of knowledge of Constitutional Law is infinitely larger and deeper than the likes and minds of established Supreme Court Justices like Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan. 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give way to the ultimate armchair policy czar and Constitutional Guru, MOOSHI ! ! ! ! 

 

 

Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor. Stephen Breyer was appointed by Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was also appointed by Clinton. And to finish it out, Elena Kagan was also appointed by, yep, Obama.

 

All the names you listed were all appointed by the same people (remember that Hillary Clinton is still a Clinton regardless if Bill isn't in office anymore) that wants to shove this down the American throat. That isn't totally biased of anything that they find it "constitutional", of course not.

 

/sarcasm

 

PS: Multiple exclamation points doesn't make an opinion any more valid.

[nicehat]

Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor. Stephen Breyer was appointed by Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was also appointed by Clinton. And to finish it out, Elena Kagan was also appointed by, yep, Obama.

 

All the names you listed were all appointed by the same people (remember that Hillary Clinton is still a Clinton regardless if Bill isn't in office anymore) that wants to shove this down the American throat. That isn't totally biased of anything that they find it "constitutional", of course not.

 

/sarcasm

 

PS: Multiple exclamation points doesn't make an opinion any more valid.

 

Sweet! So How about the Citizens United ruling? What was the awesome outcome on that, and since the ruling went down party lines, why, oh political and constitutional czar, did Justice Roberts an apointee of GW Bush vote for the Affordable Health Cara Law? Did he know that this law was about to be shoved down our collective throats? Why did he rule it constitutional and what was the conclusion of the overall Supreme Court?

[Mooshi]

I'll just leave this here.

 

http://benswann.com/obamacare-might-be-heading-back-to-the-supreme-court/

 

 

Obama went to the IRS and had them re-write the healthcare law. However, this is unconstitutional. Only Congress can make such changes to law. A lawsuit has been making its way to the Supreme Court  filed by the state of Oklahoma challenging this illegal power grab by the IRS.

[Vitalius]

me me, ME, ME! ! ! ! Pick ME! 

 

I dont know and cant grasp how wrong it is to force this law that cant be funded down our collective throats! Can you post a link from Factcheck.org to help me out?

 

And for the BIGGEST Illumination that this country has EVER witnessed, Mooshi will now tell us all how, even though the most Supreme Court of this land found the Affordable Health Care Act constitutional, it is in fact UNconstitutional. I am SURE that even a morsal of Mooshi's plethora of knowledge of Constitutional Law is infinitely larger and deeper than the likes and minds of established Supreme Court Justices like Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan. 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give way to the ultimate armchair policy czar and Constitutional Guru, MOOSHI ! ! ! ! 

You do realize the Supreme Court is wrong sometimes right? They do backtrack. It is rare, but it happens. They be vague when they decide they don't want to push the issue if they think they can't win, not that they did that here, just food for thought, it's a lot more controlled than you think, it's not just about what is "constitutionally right", it's about "what big issue can I win a case over and make law that I fully support?" and it's actual effect on the American people be damned.

[nicehat]

You do realize the Supreme Court is wrong sometimes right? They do backtrack. It is rare, but it happens. They be vague when they decide they don't want to push the issue if they think they can't win, not that they did that here, just food for thought, it's a lot more controlled than you think, it's not just about what is "constitutionally right", it's about "what big issue can I win a case over and make law that I fully support?" and it's actual effect on the American people be damned.

 

See, if it didnt go through congress, get ratified by the Senate, and then signed by the President then Id agree with you. If there was zero public support through the entire process from point A to point Z then Id have to agree with you again. 

 

And the Supreme Court does make mistakes, I never said that. Anyone can look up the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling to see that one. If you dont want to go back that far, Citizens United which ruled that Speech is money. Anyone can look up what John McCain had to say about that ruling. But those mistakes were done because of ideological reasons, not logical ones. Those bad ruling were split along party lines. The afforable healthcare law was important in that is caused a split in ideological lines and Justice Roberts ruled in its support.

 

Anyone that says that this ruling is not constitutional either does not know what the process of ruling something constitutional or not, is or, they like to shoot off their armchair constitutional lawyer opinions. If thats how they want to play it, then go ahead, by all means exercise your constitutional 1st amendment rights. But at least have some self respect and show that you know what the word means, and how it comes about.

[Mooshi]

Founding Fathers > Supreme Court Justices appointed by presidents of a corrupt party system

 

I'm just saying.

[Vitalius]

See, if it didnt go through congress, get ratified by the Senate, and then signed by the President then Id agree with you. If there was zero public support through the entire process from point A to point Z then Id have to agree with you again. 

 

And the Supreme Court does make mistakes, I never said that. Anyone can look up the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling to see that one. If you dont want to go back that far, Citizens United which ruled that Speech is money. Anyone can look up what John McCain had to say about that ruling. But those mistakes were done because of ideological reasons, not logical ones. Those bad ruling were split along party lines. The afforable healthcare law was important in that is caused a split in ideological lines and Justice Roberts ruled in its support.

 

Anyone that says that this ruling is not constitutional either does not know what the process of ruling something constitutional or not, is or, they like to shoot off their armchair constitutional lawyer opinions. If thats how they want to play it, then go ahead, by all means exercise your constitutional 1st amendment rights. But at least have some self respect and show that you know what the word means, and how it comes about.

I direct your attention to this -V.

 

I'll just leave this here.

 

http://benswann.com/obamacare-might-be-heading-back-to-the-supreme-court/

Ideological differences aside, I'm pretty sure that is right in saying such a thing is unconstitutional.

I also feel the need to point out everything I boldened in your post nicehat does nothing to make something constitutional. Not a thing.

[Mooshi]

I think I just found a quote on the internet that expresses exactly how I feel about both parties and this situation.

 

 

This sums everything up perfectly.
 

Time to go back to the system George Washington wanted for the country.

[nicehat]

What that link? Listen, I ask that if you want to bring political fact to my attention to prove me wrong, bring me a link from factcheck.org or a similar non partisan site. I only accept certain nationally recognizable unbiased sites as support for arguments in conversations. Not some journalist thats putting up videos from a kickstarter campaign. 

 

Facts or nothing

[nicehat]

 

I also feel the need to point out everything I boldened in your post nicehat does nothing to make something constitutional. Not a thing.

 

Never said it did. I was pointing out that it followed due process of the land. If it followed the rules and became law, the GOP shouldnt bitch and hold the country hostage because it didnt get its way. The constitutionality was and is maintained by the Supreme Court. You telling me that it is anything but, is your opinion and its meaningless because reality says otherwise. I already said that the Supreme Court isnt always right, but in this case it showed that this law maintained support through and over party lines. Something that has not been the case in rulings that it got completely wrong (see Citizen United, or the Plessy v. Ferguson case that upheld the Separate but Equal doctrine) is rectified not by following ideological orders, but by being the impartial interpreters of the constitution that Supreme Court Judges ought to be. And in the ruling of the Affordable Care Act, Justice Roberts's (A GW Bush nominee) admission of the constitutionality of a document primarily of Democratic architecture is testament to that impartiality. 

[TopWargamer]

[Mooshi]

 

I thought I said NO, Queenie!

 

[The Last MeMe]

I don't understand why people get so upset about politics... I mean honestly who the hell cares, if a republican was in office right now he would just be fucking something up too so really the president cant win no matter what. NEITHER PARTY CAN BE IN OFFICE WITHOUT FUCKING SOMETHING UP so why does it really matter.