What Is Wrong With America ?

[Truthmatters]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

lies from certain right wing media and the cheating the republican party does in elections.


those things have harmed this country badly

 

[Uncensored2008]

There's a thread gloating about Obama's reelection floating around here somewhere (are you really going to make me hunt it down?), so I'm pretty sure people here on USMB voted for him.

Edit: Bam.

Yeah there was, but now you can't find anyone other than Deany-Weenie and Franco who admit to voting for the incompetent pile of shit...

But whatchagunnado?

 

[House]

Wrong again. How can anyone be this wrong all the time.
Teenager

thirteen
fourteen
fifteen
sixteen
seventeen
eighteen
nineteen

It's not as hard as you are making it. See the TEEN? That means teenager.

You can be an adult teenager, and you can be a young teenager.

Eighteen is not a child in any state in the nation.

Seventeen is a child in any state in the nation. And for some things, so is 20. I'm beginning to focus on your problems.

1. You can't understand >> Has a teenager of 13 TO 17 reached the age at which legally binding contracts can be entered into ? No. Have they reached the age at which they can join the military ? No. Can they vote ? Can they buy alcoholic beverages ? No. Do they meet the definition of a child. Yes.

2. You don't know how to get lost.

You say 17 is a child in any state in the nation. Yet, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in most states. Are you saying you think our government encourages sex with children?

Funny you should bring that up, because many states that have a minimum age of consent below 18 also require a certain age gap between the two parties in question or it's statutory rape.

Refer to this site for a list on current minimum age/age gap requirements.

So, does the "government" encourage sex with children? Since statutory rape laws vary by state, that all depends on which state you're referring to.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The republicans put a guy in magic underwear up against Obama in the last election. What the **** did you all expect?

If the average IQ of Americans was above 60, the Republicans could have run a dog turd infested with maggots against Obama, and won.

After all, we ALL know the dog turd would be more competent.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Seventeen is a child in any state in the nation. And for some things, so is 20. I'm beginning to focus on your problems.

1. You can't understand >> Has a teenager of 13 TO 17 reached the age at which legally binding contracts can be entered into ? No. Have they reached the age at which they can join the military ? No. Can they vote ? Can they buy alcoholic beverages ? No. Do they meet the definition of a child. Yes.

2. You don't know how to get lost.

You say 17 is a child in any state in the nation. Yet, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in most states. Are you saying you think our government encourages sex with children?

I told you before, I'm not going to read your posts. And I asked you a bunch of questions in this thread, which you, like a gutless coward, have been running from ever since, and have never even half-adequately answered. So you don't have a toe to stand on to be asking me anything, at this point.

RKM, legally defined, a "child" is everyone under age 18.

The AoC in the US ranges from 15 to 18. Some states have legal exceptions for 'if married' as here in Missouri where you can marry at 15 with parental consent (and younger still with a judge's consent.)

The government doesn't encourage anyone to have sex however, let alone children as the handfull of reasons used to justify AoC laws in the first place include too many teenaged pregnancies to men over age 18 with girls under age 18. California for example cites a over 50% stat of this sort of teenaged pregnancies.

As to use of the word 'pedophile.' News is entertainment, not science. So that they use the word when ever referencing someone under age 18 (who's legally a child) is simply them sensationalizing things. Pedophilia properly defined is applied to those under 12 with those over 18. Or sometimes also those over 18 attracted to those who haven't yet reached the age of puberty. A better definition, since onset of puberty transitions the body from 'child-like' to 'adult-like' via secondary sex characteristics (developing breasts, body hair, etc.) and isn't a fixed age.

 

[House]

The republicans put a guy in magic underwear up against Obama in the last election. What the **** did you all expect?

If the average IQ of Americans was above 60, the Republicans could have run a dog turd infested with maggots against Obama, and won.

After all, we ALL know the dog turd would be more competent.

Which is precisely why Romney losing after 4 years of Obama spoke volumes about what an unelectable piece of shit Mitt is.

 

[whitehall]

Anti-Americans who are lucky enough to get to get to a computer are free to post junk but it doesn't alter the fact that the United States is the greatest Country on the globe. Stupid low information lefties who don't have the intelligence or the will to better themselves can complain about the "rich" but the fact is that anybody can become rich in the US. People die in the desert and risk execution by corrupt governments to get to the US. There are verified stories of (legal) immigrants arriving in the US with a couple of dollars and becoming "rich" in a couple of years of hard work and by educating themselves. Whine if you want to lefties but it only makes you look more ignorant.

 

[House]

Anti-Americans who are lucky enough to get to get to a computer are free to post junk but it doesn't alter the fact that the United States is the greatest Country on the globe.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFuvLnG6rKw]Why America is NOT the greatest country in the world, anymore - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If not acting out violently I wouldn't decry someone as being anti-American when the American Bill of Rights includes an Amendment designed for overthrowing the government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny, It seemed to me that is exactly what some capitalists do.

Yes, but then, you really are quite stupid - so what "seems to you" is rarely factual.

You have what, a 4th grade education? You don't understand the terms used in normal conversation and engage in endless Malapropisms.

Capitalism is a system of voluntary trade.

They do it by underpaying their employees and keeping the lion's share of the take for themselves.

You mean the employee agrees to work for $10 an hour and the "capitalist" only pays them $9 an hours?

Where you lack the wits to grasp reality comrade, is that employment is voluntary. An employee offers to sell his time and talent. The employer agrees to buy the time and talent. This is no different that you buying a Mt. Dew at the store when you're completely fucked up on Chronic (which is any time you're awake, amirite?)

If you go to Albertsons an buy the soda for $1, did you underpay because 7-11 will charge $3 for the same thing?

Hardly. An employee sells his time for the best price he can negotiate.

And I strongly question your honesty. You make a statement you know is false, and then critique the subject of it. You know damn well that nobody thinks that the lemonade seller stole the $40 by providing a product that people want....And you're pretty stupid if you think anybody's going to accept that. Marxists would only see a business owner as a thief if he was underpaying people working for him.

Comrade, have you been diagnosed as mentally retarded?

HA HA. Some of the things you guys try to get away with in here is quite remarkable. Might be a good place for psychologists to study aberrated mentalities.

Comrade, you are ignorant and uneducated. And those are you good qualities.

 

[Doubletap]

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. ” Ayn Rand

 

[protectionist]

You imply it every time you object to the notion that the power of government should be limited in scope. You keep coming back to the idea that, if the majority wills it, anything goes.

FALSE! IN YOUR MIND, I imply it, and only there. Fact is, I never imply, insinuate, or infer anything, ever. And I haven't said that I "object to the notion that the power of government should be limited in scope." YOU said that. And I also didn't say that "if the majority wills it, anything goes". YOU said that too.

Hereafter, would it be OK if I say my words, instead of you saying them ?

Oh, blue this time. Nice!

How 'bout you just answer a straight up question? Do you accept the idea that the Constitution limits the scope of government, regardless of whether it is pursuing the will of the majority or not? Because you've indicated otherwise. If I'm reading that wrong, feel free to correct me.

Sure, I can answer a straight up question (you didn't ask me any, going back 80 posts). I might need you to clarify a bit though, what exactly you mean by the somewhat vague term "scope of government". I'll correct you if I feel right about that, but first I want to get a better focus on just what you're talking about. You can be brief, as long as you're clear.

 

[protectionist]

You say 17 is a child in any state in the nation. Yet, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in most states. Are you saying you think our government encourages sex with children?

I told you before, I'm not going to read your posts. And I asked you a bunch of questions in this thread, which you, like a gutless coward, have been running from ever since, and have never even half-adequately answered. So you don't have a toe to stand on to be asking me anything, at this point.

RKM, legally defined, a "child" is everyone under age 18.

The AoC in the US ranges from 15 to 18. Some states have legal exceptions for 'if married' as here in Missouri where you can marry at 15 with parental consent (and younger still with a judge's consent.)

The government doesn't encourage anyone to have sex however, let alone children as the handfull of reasons used to justify AoC laws in the first place include too many teenaged pregnancies to men over age 18 with girls under age 18. California for example cites a over 50% stat of this sort of teenaged pregnancies.

As to use of the word 'pedophile.' News is entertainment, not science. So that they use the word when ever referencing someone under age 18 (who's legally a child) is simply them sensationalizing things. Pedophilia properly defined is applied to those under 12 with those over 18. Or sometimes also those over 18 attracted to those who haven't yet reached the age of puberty. A better definition, since onset of puberty transitions the body from 'child-like' to 'adult-like' via secondary sex characteristics (developing breasts, body hair, etc.) and isn't a fixed age.

I think I already made that same comment on pedophilia (in a bit shorter form), but that's OK. Better to have extra correct information than not enough of it. Kind of like spark plug wire. Better too long, than too short.

 

[protectionist]

The republicans put a guy in magic underwear up against Obama in the last election. What the **** did you all expect?

If the average IQ of Americans was above 60, the Republicans could have run a dog turd infested with maggots against Obama, and won.

After all, we ALL know the dog turd would be more competent.

Which is precisely why Romney losing after 4 years of Obama spoke volumes about what an unelectable piece of shit Mitt is.

Or the overall fear that Americans have of Republicans to cut Social Security.

 

[House]

If the average IQ of Americans was above 60, the Republicans could have run a dog turd infested with maggots against Obama, and won.

After all, we ALL know the dog turd would be more competent.

Which is precisely why Romney losing after 4 years of Obama spoke volumes about what an unelectable piece of shit Mitt is.

Or the overall fear that Americans have of Republicans to cut Social Security.

Oh cut the crap. People were dying for a viable alternative to Obama, but what happened? The republicans took our desperation as a challenge to see just how badly we wanted him gone.

Turns out, as shitty as Obama is... Mitt's worse. Even he can't deny that, now.

 

[protectionist]

If not acting out violently I wouldn't decry someone as being anti-American when the American Bill of Rights includes an Amendment designed for overthrowing the government.

There are US Codes designed to outlaw overthrowing the US govt (2384 & 2385), and even the mere conspiring to do that. What Amendment in the Bill of rights are you talking about ?

 

[dblack]

FALSE! IN YOUR MIND, I imply it, and only there. Fact is, I never imply, insinuate, or infer anything, ever. And I haven't said that I "object to the notion that the power of government should be limited in scope." YOU said that. And I also didn't say that "if the majority wills it, anything goes". YOU said that too.

Hereafter, would it be OK if I say my words, instead of you saying them ?

Oh, blue this time. Nice!

How 'bout you just answer a straight up question? Do you accept the idea that the Constitution limits the scope of government, regardless of whether it is pursuing the will of the majority or not? Because you've indicated otherwise. If I'm reading that wrong, feel free to correct me.

Sure, I can answer a straight up question (you didn't ask me any, going back 80 posts). I might need you to clarify a bit though, what exactly you mean by the somewhat vague term "scope of government". I'll correct you if I feel right about that, but first I want to get a better focus on just what you're talking about. You can be brief, as long as you're clear.

That's what I thought.

 

[protectionist]

Funny, It seemed to me that is exactly what some capitalists do.

Yes, but then, you really are quite stupid - so what "seems to you" is rarely factual.

You have what, a 4th grade education? You don't understand the terms used in normal conversation and engage in endless Malapropisms.

Capitalism is a system of voluntary trade.

They do it by underpaying their employees and keeping the lion's share of the take for themselves.

You mean the employee agrees to work for $10 an hour and the "capitalist" only pays them $9 an hours?

Where you lack the wits to grasp reality comrade, is that employment is voluntary. An employee offers to sell his time and talent. The employer agrees to buy the time and talent. This is no different that you buying a Mt. Dew at the store when you're completely fucked up on Chronic (which is any time you're awake, amirite?)

If you go to Albertsons an buy the soda for $1, did you underpay because 7-11 will charge $3 for the same thing?

Hardly. An employee sells his time for the best price he can negotiate.

And I strongly question your honesty. You make a statement you know is false, and then critique the subject of it. You know damn well that nobody thinks that the lemonade seller stole the $40 by providing a product that people want....And you're pretty stupid if you think anybody's going to accept that. Marxists would only see a business owner as a thief if he was underpaying people working for him.

Comrade, have you been diagnosed as mentally retarded?

HA HA. Some of the things you guys try to get away with in here is quite remarkable. Might be a good place for psychologists to study aberrated mentalities.

Comrade, you are ignorant and uneducated. And those are you good qualities.

What a pitiful post. And especially since the same notion (employees agreeing to a low wage) has already been trounced by me, what > twice ? Three times now ? Pheeeeeww!! No, capitalism is mostly NOT a system of voluntary trade. AGAIN, employees generally, don't "agree" to a very low wage. They accept it only because they have no other choice. It's either that low wage, or the same low wage offered by some other employer. And don't give me that education hard work either. Lots of people can't afford education, and others are discriminated from it (as in affirmative action). And all your yammering about trade doesn't change the fact that the employers are holding all the cards, and the workers are being ripped by the millions. How many companies pay all their employees a total of some amount of money, only to have a single business owner pocketing 100 times that much ? And this is what workers "agree" to, right ? Stop talking stupid!

As for your silly "uneducated" claim, I have 2 bachelor degrees from the City university of New York + half a masters degree, and I taught Economics and Geography in 4 colleges of it, for 3 years. Maybe I should give you a lesson right here.

 

[protectionist]

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. ” Ayn Rand

So if somebody is working for 7.25/hour (US minimum wage) and the govt were to (ludicrously) raise it to 7.50, this would be an UNEARNED benefit ?

I'd say it would be EARNED if they raised to to $20/hour, or whatever wage it requires for a full time worker to fundamentally make a LIVING.

 

[protectionist]

Which is precisely why Romney losing after 4 years of Obama spoke volumes about what an unelectable piece of shit Mitt is.

Or the overall fear that Americans have of Republicans to cut Social Security.

Oh cut the crap. People were dying for a viable alternative to Obama, but what happened? The republicans took our desperation as a challenge to see just how badly we wanted him gone.

Turns out, as shitty as Obama is... Mitt's worse. Even he can't deny that, now.

I stick by the > overall fear that Americans have of Republicans to cut Social Security, theory 100% (and I might add VA benefits to that also).