UPNetwork (http://forums.upnetwork.net/index.php)
-   Debate (http://forums.upnetwork.net/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   American Politics (http://forums.upnetwork.net/showthread.php?t=4569)

Amras.MG 11-13-2012 10:15 PM

I also love how closely this coincides with the release of Lincoln.

deoxys 11-14-2012 02:23 AM

You know what? Fuck them, if they want to create the Confederacy part dos, go for it. The US will benefit from less spending, although Texas has the two largest US military complexes in the country so... if they DID secede... plausible Civil War II? The first one started because the Confederacy was trying to claim federal US property as their own... I'm pretty sure, anyway.

Also, Rick Perry even came out and said he is against secession. You know that when Rick Perry disagrees with you on the topic, you truly are a nutcase.

Muyotwo 11-14-2012 04:15 AM

The supreme court ruled shortly after the CSA that Texas doesn't have the right to secede. So even those merry band of idiots who'd like to split from the US are boned.

Concept 11-14-2012 04:35 AM


Originally Posted by deoxys (Post 407330)
Also, Rick Perry even came out and said he is against secession. You know that when Rick Perry disagrees with you on the topic, you truly are a nutcase.

Now now, Rick Perry disagrees with me on many things.

deoxys 11-14-2012 06:16 AM

I worded that wrong, but you know what I meant :P

Amras.MG 11-14-2012 07:10 AM

I'm pretty sure the first civil war happened simply because they seceded. States simply cannot do that. Property was not involved.

deoxys 11-15-2012 05:04 PM


Obama is pissed.

Glad to see he's putting his foot down and growing a pair. Especially when he says "they've got a problem with me." I love it.

DragonDance 01-10-2013 12:56 AM

Why didn't more people vote for Gary Johnson?

Rangeet 01-10-2013 01:06 AM

Same reason nobody voted for Jill Stein. They didn't want to risk Romney winning, period

Mercutio 01-10-2013 05:47 AM

I never really paid him any attention but I imagine it's as Rangeet says. Third party in America's bizarre party system, go figure.

Slash 01-10-2013 08:52 PM

I voted for Jill Stein. But I live in Arkansas, so...

Amras.MG 01-10-2013 08:55 PM

I didn't vote because I had better things to do.

Tyranidos 01-10-2013 09:03 PM


Originally Posted by Amras.MG (Post 424789)
I didn't vote because I had better things to do.

Don't you live on Ohio? Your vote actually matters, so why not do it?

Amras.MG 01-10-2013 09:14 PM

Because I had better things to do =D Like schoolwork!

Mercutio 06-26-2013 11:01 AM

DOMA's been hit. Yay.

Talon87 06-26-2013 11:14 AM

From what I understand, all that's happened is that we've gone from Before to After:

Before: some states said that gays could marry; most states forbade it; the federal government officially said that gays couldn't marry (though they could get civil unions), so the states that said gays could marry were kinda-sorta giving gay couples hollow promises; and as a result, gay married couples even in those states where gay marriage was legal were not able to collect certain benefits that other married couples were entitled to

After: the federal government has reversed its position on gay marriage, saying that gays can in fact get married; however, it hasn't enforced recognition of gay marriage on the country -- all it's stated is that gay marriage is recognized by the federal government in those states where it is legal for gays to marry; gay marriage is still illegal in 30+ states, and the federal government isn't stepping in and saying "No, you must allow gay couples who live in your state to marry."

So basically, if you're a gay married man or woman living in a state like Massachusetts or Iowa, you won federal recognition of your marriage and all of the financial and legal benefits that come with being married; but if you're a gay man or woman living in one of the 30+ states where gay marriage is explicitly rendered illegal by state law, then you got jackshit nothing from today's ruling other than the promise that if your state one day should decide to change its stance on gay marriage then the federal government at that time will have your back.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Haven't really looked that deeply into the issue.

Jerichi 06-26-2013 04:49 PM

It's a step, though, and effectively throws a wrench in any outright bans and gives new bills potential steam. It's nowhere near as good as won, but its a major help.

Escalion 06-26-2013 11:01 PM

So happy we don't have political issues like this (abortion, gay marriage) in the Netherlands. We took care of that years and years ago.

But seriously though, for a country that prides itself in being a country of freedom, the USA do restrict the freedom and rights of a lot of its own people.

Mercutio 10-01-2013 07:06 AM

The American political system is a joke.


Jerichi 10-01-2013 09:17 AM

gj congress a+ legislating

Ten year olds could run a government better.

Tyranidos 10-01-2013 09:30 AM

Is this the least productive Congress in history? Does anyone know if there is a metric for that sort of thing? I guess number of bills passed would be one but I don't feel like searching through all 113th odd Congresses.

Talon87 10-01-2013 09:49 AM

Number of bills passed could be useful in the short run but would probably cease to be very useful once you pushed past ten-year windows. Some periods are marked by a need for more legislation; others, less. Wouldn't be fair to past Congresses to condemn their lack of productivity if, back then, nothing really needed fixing and "that government is best which governs least" rang true in the hearts of voting Americans nationwide.

I guess that if we wanted to assess which Congresses have been least cooperative we might want to check the ratios of bills passed to bills submitted in total. But even this wouldn't necessarily measure a Congress's badness. You could have a tyrannical Congress which passes everything it wants to, zero opposition on Capitol Hill, but passes many laws which oppress the people. Still, I guess it could be a metric worth examining, assumptions depending.

Tyranidos 10-01-2013 09:54 AM

Yeah I had those exact thoughts, but I literally couldn't think of another way to assess how "useful" a particular Congress has been.

Anyway, if you Brits want to reassert colonial rule, feel free, at least we might have access to good chocolate.

Mercutio 10-01-2013 10:30 AM

Such studies do exist, you look at legislation dealt with, votes made, committee work etc. But I agree that comparison over time isn't useful.

deh74 10-01-2013 10:46 AM

Public approval for the current Congress is at, at most, ten percent. Also, the NASA site was shut down too...and I have to do a project on them!


RE: the photo above, via TPM:
Under the headline “House of Turds,” the latest cover of the New York Daily News shows Boehner seated at the Lincoln Memorial with blood dripping from his hands — a send-up of the popular Netflix series “House of Cards.”
And then there's this...

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.