Roll of honor and roll of shame

[tombogan03884]

The only flaw in that logic is that building requires capital.

And raw material that may or may not be available.

[Thanos]

The only flaw in that logic is that building requires capital.

Even Marx realized that labor is capital. Locke was right on the money when his theory proposed that labor (I would also include time) naturally created inequality. Inequlity is was causes those with less to attempt to gain more. This natural order of things will produce capital and therefore more inequality. This greater inequality will then cause those with the the greater capital to use that capital to create more opportunities for labor. (I would disagree with Rousseau that this will cause eventual corrosion of society through arts and sciences) This opportunity for others to labor for those with more capital will be paid and their payment will induce others to create more capital to sell to others.

Many would see this as simplistic, but the first thing that people will do if all were set to the same level of nothing would be to trade. Those that trade more effectively or have a needed (Wheat, water, strength or such) commodity will become those with more capital.

I don't think that the world could go back to the stone age. Prometheous has brought the fire, the gods can't take it back. Knowledge is just like the fire, it can be lost for a time, but anyone who remembers it will seek it out.

I know that I could make an internal combustion engine, maybe not a v-12 with a sports car around it, but definately a small two stroke that could power a generator, then a computer with files of information on it...then I have all the knowledge in the world. For the raw material, I would be able to find some in the remains of the old plants that used to manufacture it. I can find old computer parts at a best buy, old car parts at dealerships, old canning equipment at Del Monte, old rocket parts in NM, gun parts at Colt...ect. Once I have something built it is just a step to mass production.

[PegLeg45]

Finally got a reply from my other senator regarding his yes vote for Holder as AG. Notice in the bold print the 'promise' of adhereing to the SCOTUS opinion of the 2nd Amendment.

Dear Mr. Goins:

  Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Eric Holder to Attorney General of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

  I voted in favor of Mr. Holder's confirmation for three main reasons. First, when I spoke to Mr. Holder regarding his nomination he was very forthright and candid. He acknowledged that his interpretations of the Second Amendment may be more strict than mine, but he acknowledged the Supreme Court to be the law of the land and said he would enforce their decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right (emphasis added). Secondly, on the prosecution at Guantanamo, he acknowledged that those who had done interrogations at Guantanamo Bay had done so under the authority of the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice could not undo what it had done. Lastly, the late Griffin Bell, the former Attorney General and a Georgian, and Larry Thompson, the former Deputy Attorney General under President Bush and a former Georgian, praised Mr. Holder's ability as a lawyer. For these reasons I voted in favor of Mr. Holder's confirmation and he was confirmed by a vote of 75 to 21. 

  Thank you again for contacting me.  Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm. 
You can also click here to sign up for the eNewsletter

[Thanos]

First, when I spoke to Mr. Holder regarding his nomination he was very forthright and candid. He acknowledged that his interpretations of the Second Amendment may be more strict than mine, but he acknowledged the Supreme Court to be the law of the land and said he would enforce their decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right (emphasis added).

You may want to tell your stupid Senator that the Supreme Court is NOT the law of the land, The Constitution of the United States of America is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. SCOTUS just interprets the Constitution.

What a total idiot!

Almost as bad as Biden saying that Vice Presidential powers are outlined in Article 1.

[deamonpi]

2.   Anyone elected official in government gets audited every year by both state and federal tax bodies. Any irregularities will be turned over to another state chosen at random for audit, federal would be turned over to a state that is currently controlled by a member of an opposite political party. All their spending and finances are public record and their bank statements are posted online for everyone to see in a financial recording similar to what is required of publicly traded companies.
5.   Presidents after their presidency are wards of the state and will be given a stipend equal to 75% of their pay as a president. They are not permitted to make or spend any money after office that is not given to them as a stipend. The same goes for Congress.
6.   Anyone found to influence lawmakers or elected officials decisions through bribery, extortion or collusion will be tried with a maximum of two appeals. If found guilty two out of three times, life imprisonment.
7.   Murder carries the death penalty; they will be tried with a maximum of two appeals. If found guilty two out of three times, executed in no more than 90 days. All crimes are treated as they were committed that morning, 50 year old cases are punished the same.
8.   Guns; everyone can own one except those who have been found guilty of a felony, violent crime, had the right legally removed or deemed mentally unfit. A panel of 9 nominated judges in each county will review every legal or medical recommendation for the removal of gun rights.
9.   Anyone committing any act against the United States while outside the territorial boarders of the United States will have the same rights and privileges of those in the country that the crime or planning of crime happened. (Example: If they commit an act of terror in Syria, they get Syrian rights.) The trials can take place anywhere.
11.   Water boarding is a legal for of interrogation.
12.   It is not Cruel or Unusual if we think it is the right thing to do as punishment and use it on a regular basis.
16.   Rape is a punishable by the death penalty.
17.   Insanity or personal hardship is not an excuse and cannot be considered in a court of law. Exceptions can be made when safety or health or others was at risk. Insane people can be punished the same as all others. Mentally disabled requires a jury of 100 people to vote unanimously that the person fits the definition of mentally disabled by a medical board of three doctors and would not understand the concept of right and wrong at a level greater than a three year old.
18.   When minors turn 18 in jail, they will serve the rest of their sentence, required to finish High School and join the military or stay in prison for an additional ten years.
20.   If 30,000,000 people think that you are a jerk, they can petition to have your citizenship revoked and you deported to the country of your choice, which is not required to accept you. All petitions will require 30 million votes of living persons over the age or 18. A finger print must be provided and voting is anonymous.
21.   You can opt out of a Union and keep your money.
 

2. Why would it be necessary to know what your congressman bought at Barnes & Noble.  You realize of course this would diminish the pool of people wanting to run for gov't office, too almost nothing.  But I suppose that is what you think you want.
5.  The founders did not want our elected officials to be insulated from commerce, they wanted them to continue to have a reason to seek the best interests of the nation, the only way to realistically do that is to be involved in the markets.  You propose to have a separate class of individuals running the country, once they are elected,  wow that's not well thought out I think.
6. & 7.You miss the point of an appeal.  An appeal is to ensure all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed, to make sure the proper standard was followed.  You propose that only two of those proceedings are important, thereby making the entire institution suspect.  That's a little inconsistent if you ask me.
8. You underestimate the opposition.  You state "everyone can own one".  You should consider your phrasing more, that is the true problem making law.
9. Even a citizen?  Are you throwing people you have sworn to defend and protect to the wolves?  There is no problem with the prosecution of criminals, but the gov't still has a duty to protect them.  So far you have given no reason for anyone to have allegiance to your country.
11. If you are going to spell out one form you should really keep going.  What else is a legal form of interrogation? Yelling? It is more efficient to list what is not permissible than to list what is permissible, ergo the bill of rights, limiting the powers of the Fed gov't.  Those founders knew what they were doing.
12. I am glad to see you have read Starship Troopers.
16. Are you saying women, because generally they are the ones being raped, exceptions may be made, are less than men?  That an assault, sexual or not, on a woman is different?  I understand the want for a harsh punishment but the definition of something is very important.  Rape is classified as, and defined as, an assault.  It is an important distinction, you will have to change the definition of rape before you can change the punishment.
17. A jury of 100?  It seems now that you are just pulling specious numbers out of your... please give a good reason for 100 jurists.  As for insanity that is already the case, mostly- those who are considered insane are deemed mentally deficient, thereby mentally disabled.  Sorry its a definition thing again.
18. forcing people to join the armed services is not a good idea.  Our armed services have never been better since it became all volunteer.  Those coerced into service, even by choosing service over internment, typically don't serve well.  That's the last thing I want in an armed serviceman.
20. Yet another number pulled out of your...?  A gov't has a duty to its citizens, that citizenship should not be revoked on a whim, yes that is whim.  Do you really want a country with no honor, as betraying a duty merely because you don't care for a person, is definitely dishonorable.  That is the problem we are having in training armies of the middle east, the belief that one must fulfill their duty, word, pledge, etc.., regardless of to whom it was made.
21. only so long as you accept all responsibility in regards to your work contract, health plan, dental plan, retirement plan, raise schedule, sick days, etc...

[Sponsor]

[alfsauve]

PegLeg,

I haven't received anything back from Johnny, yet.

On the good side, they both voted against 'porkulus'.   Now to write them and remind them to vote against the compromise.

[Thanos]

2. Why would it be necessary to know what your congressman bought at Barnes & Noble.  You realize of course this would diminish the pool of people wanting to run for gov't office, too almost nothing.  But I suppose that is what you think you want.

I want the people who are running the governement to have an open window on their life. I don't think they should be given a place to hid their misdeeds. We all know what absolute power does.

5.  The founders did not want our elected officials to be insulated from commerce, they wanted them to continue to have a reason to seek the best interests of the nation, the only way to realistically do that is to be involved in the markets.  You propose to have a separate class of individuals running the country, once they are elected,  wow that's not well thought out I think.

I thought that someone would bring this up, but I have a solution to that too. They don't get paid unless the country is in the black. Basically, they are the last ones in the pay line. We could even work out a bonus system that gives them a sliding scale bonus if all the bills are paid. The founders of our nation expected everyone to act with honor and integrity, please don't be ignorant and say Congress does that.

6. & 7.You miss the point of an appeal.  An appeal is to ensure all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed, to make sure the proper standard was followed.  You propose that only two of those proceedings are important, thereby making the entire institution suspect.  That's a little inconsistent if you ask me.

No, I didn't miss the point of appeal. You missed the point of sentencing and punishment, it actually has to happen at some point in time.

8. You underestimate the opposition.  You state "everyone can own one".  You should consider your phrasing more, that is the true problem making law.

Really, how is that a problem? Did you miss the Constitution in Washington DC? (Please don't be ignorant and say that it is Philly) If you have the ability to read you would have read the part after "except", you can get back to me on that. 

9. Even a citizen?  Are you throwing people you have sworn to defend and protect to the wolves?  There is no problem with the prosecution of criminals, but the gov't still has a duty to protect them.  So far you have given no reason for anyone to have allegiance to your country.

Look up SOFA, those are rights given to our citizens in other countries. I would hope you had some idea that the US makes agreements on how our military citizens will be treated in other countries. If you broke the law somewhere else, you do not have the same rights as you would have here, that is already established. I meant terrorists caught on the battlefield of Iraq brought to Gitmo do not have Constitutional rights any more than the people left in Iraq do. If either does, we MUST defend those who are still in Iraq or we are hypocrites, I am in favor of defending them.

11. If you are going to spell out one form you should really keep going.  What else is a legal form of interrogation? Yelling? It is more efficient to list what is not permissible than to list what is permissible, ergo the bill of rights, limiting the powers of the Fed gov't.  Those founders knew what they were doing.

The only reason that I have a problem with waterboarding is because we prosecuted Japanese soldiers after WWII for doing it. If we so my #10, I don't have a problem with it anymore. Remember Kalid Sheik Mohammad (sp?) "Lasted a long time" (News Interview with interrogater)
 before he broke down, 30 seconds. Seems like waterboarding works.

12. I am glad to see you have read Starship Troopers.

I am disappointed that you don't know who Cesare Borgio was. I didn't read Starship Troopers, I had other things on my bookshelf.

16. Are you saying women, because generally they are the ones being raped, exceptions may be made, are less than men?  That an assault, sexual or not, on a woman is different?  I understand the want for a harsh punishment but the definition of something is very important.  Rape is classified as, and defined as, an assault.  It is an important distinction, you will have to change the definition of rape before you can change the punishment.

I think you missed the point, people who rape other people are eligible for the death penalty, kind of like that guy last year who got off on raping a child when the SCOTUS said that he was not eligible for the death penalty.

17. A jury of 100?  It seems now that you are just pulling specious numbers out of your... please give a good reason for 100 jurists.  As for insanity that is already the case, mostly- those who are considered insane are deemed mentally deficient, thereby mentally disabled.  Sorry its a definition thing again.

Read the last part, "Mentally disabled requires a jury of 100 people to vote unanimously that the person fits the definition of mentally disabled by a medical board of three doctors and would not understand the concept of right and wrong at a level greater than a three year old." Charles Manson is not metally deficient, he is insane. Sorry, it must be a clairification thing that you don't get, again. The mental capacity of Susan Smith is just fine, she is insane, but she is still in my opinion more than eligible for death.

18. forcing people to join the armed services is not a good idea.  Our armed services have never been better since it became all volunteer.  Those coerced into service, even by choosing service over internment, typically don't serve well.  That's the last thing I want in an armed serviceman.

We can have a special service for them, I am tired of criminals leaving jail and having no skills except those that got them there. They can join the Salvation Army for all I care. I want them working and doing something for someone other than themselves. Idle hands are the devils tools.

20. Yet another number pulled out of your...?  A gov't has a duty to its citizens, that citizenship should not be revoked on a whim, yes that is whim.  Do you really want a country with no honor, as betraying a duty merely because you don't care for a person, is definitely dishonorable.  That is the problem we are having in training armies of the middle east, the belief that one must fulfill their duty, word, pledge, etc.., regardless of to whom it was made.

"citizenship should not be revoked on a whim," 30 million people is not a whim, but when Cher, Alec Baldwin and several others say something to the effect of " I will move out of this country and give up my citizenship if Bush gets elected" I think we should help them out the door. Citizenship requires responsibility, (Read Spiderman #1) The problem we are having in training armies in the middle east is not the fact that the country won't keep it's pledge, it is the person won't keep theirs. Note the incentive to keep your pledge if you are stripped of citizenship and kicked out?

21. only so long as you accept all responsibility in regards to your work contract, health plan, dental plan, retirement plan, raise schedule, sick days, etc...

Unions don't provide all those, the employer does. The Union may bargin for them, but if you are not wanting to donate your money to their cause, you don't have to. Several states have the option of not being in the union and being able to keep your job, why should you be required to give money to someone you don't like if you get a job at UPS? Unions are a shake down racket. If you don't want to be in one, you should have the "Freedom" (ever heard of this word?) to opt out. Requiring someone to pay union dues is servitude.