M-1A1 Not Invincible?

[Stainless]

-Alcohol is unhealty and causes social problems, ILEGALIZE.
-Recreational drugs (including tobacco), see previous.

What about recreational drugs that have a medical purpose?

As for illegalising alcohol. Are you nuts?!

[MurPHy]

Alcohol is unhealty and causes social problems, ILEGALIZE.

It's been tried already. Ever hear of Prohibition? It failed miserably. It's also how gangsters (such as Al Capone) became such infamous figures.

Guns are dangerous in the hands of irresponsible people, to have a gun a person should pass rigorous phisical and mental tests and prove the need of owning a gun.

You'd be wise to shut up about that unless you want another raging pro-control/pro-gun debate (which'll happen when/if Kash puts his two cents in).

Cars should only be used as a means of transportation and not as a status symbol, limite size and fuel consumption.

Bullshit. I like my 302 Mustang and nobody will take it from me. Ever see a BOSS 429 Mustang? My God its HUGE!! (the engine that is)

[Grey Fil]

Thank you for proving my point!

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

you ARE a fairy grey.
anyone who knows anything knows for a fucking fact no one will take my 401 AMX away from me and all the cars now have lightweight fairy engines compared to the old ones. fuel comsumption is bullshit i want cars that go fast not that look like an AZTEC and drive like a TOPAZ.

302 mustangs can be nasty cars depending on the year and what you do to the engine. the BOSS 429 Cobra Jet is a nasty assed car and when you add shit to it it gets nastier. they are even beautiful cars.

cars now are so goddamn ugly and bland.

[MurPHy]

Thank you for proving my point!

Uh, which one? The car one? Please. I will NEVER own anything that doesn't have a V8 engine (whether or not I'd buy one with a 289 is questionable). By your rules, everyone would drive puny 3-cylinder Yugos!

EDIT:

302 mustangs can be nasty cars depending on the year and what you do to the engine. the BOSS 429 Cobra Jet is a nasty assed car and when you add shit to it it gets nastier. they are even beautiful cars.

Mine's a 1990 LX hatchback. Stock. It's fast, and if I had the money it'd be a helluva lot faster.

cars now are so goddamn ugly and bland.

I agree. The fact that the new Mustang Mach I is based on the old 289 powerplant shows how much of a pussy Ford is lately. I mean, they're getting the same horsepower (305 @ 5800 RPM) as Carroll Shelby got out of it back in '65-66 (306 @ 6000 RPM). Pathetic. I had expected 'em to at least put a 302 in the thing, and a 351 Windsor or 390 big-block if they were smart! Again, pathetic.

The fact that Japanese V4 and V6 powered cars are beating American muscle on the street proves my point. If the big three (GM, Ford, and I believe Chrysler) had any balls at all they would bring back the good 'ol days of the 396 and 427/428/429 and 455 (Buick). I firmly believe that if you took an old 400+ cubic inch big-block and used some modern technology on it the thing would be able to beat ANY Japanese V4 or V6 vehicle out there, even with supercharging and Nitrous Oxide! But sadly, this will never be.....*sigh*

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

If i where to impose my views on others just because it´s the right thing to do, here goes what I would do:
-To many people on this planet, 2 children max per couple and then sterilization.
-Food with to much salt, fat and sugar are unhealty, close all the fast food chains.
-Alcohol is unhealty and causes social problems, ILEGALIZE.
-Recreational drugs (including tobacco), see previous.
-Cars should only be used as a means of transportation and not as a status symbol, limite size and fuel consumption.
-Race is the source of social conflict, people are therefore not allowed to marry people of the same race to eliminate racial diferences.
-Guns are dangerous in the hands of irresponsible people, to have a gun a person should pass rigorous phisical and mental tests and prove the need of owning a gun.

i may be a communist but atleast i aint a nazi.

2 children max is understandable.

just because you are a vegan health slut dont impose bullshit health ideas on others.

you must be too young to drink because alcohol doesnt cause too many problems if you get hammered and pass out.

cars = enjoyment not just status symbols you moron. i would drive any 70s era car for the fact that the engine is huge and the car is beautiful. cars now are ugly, sluggish and pieces of toned down shit for environmentalist wankers like you.

race is and always will be a conflict unless you only have one race in a country and then people would resort to beliefs to segregate people. you cant prevent it no matter what you do.

guns are dangerous period. why dont we go back in time and make a society that never designed them hmm? [sarcasm]

[MurPHy]

i may be a communist but atleast i aint a nazi.

As long as communists don't try to usurp a democratic government, I've no problem with them. As for Nazis, I have a shoot-on-sight policy.

2 children max is understandable.

'Tis. Aren't they trying it in China now?

just because you are a vegan health slut dont impose bullshit health ideas on others.

In other words:
11th Commandment: Keep thy beliefs and religion(s) to thyself!

you must be too young to drink because alcohol doesnt cause too many problems if you get hammered and pass out.

I'm not of legal age yet (21), so I can't pass judgement on that. But history shows us that illegalizing booze is a very, very bad idea.

cars = enjoyment not just status symbols you moron. i would drive any 70s era car for the fact that the engine is huge and the car is beautiful. cars now are ugly, sluggish and pieces of toned down shit for environmentalist wankers like you.

I dislike tree-huggers. Grey Fil is probably a member of the Sierra Club.

race is and always will be a conflict unless you only have one race in a country and then people would resort to beliefs to segregate people. you cant prevent it no matter what you do.

Yep. It's one of humanity's everlasting problems.

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

The fact that the new Mustang Mach I is based on the old 289 powerplant shows how much of a pussy Ford is lately. I mean, they're getting the same horsepower (305 @ 5800 RPM) as Carroll Shelby got out of it back in '65-66 (306 @ 6000 RPM). Pathetic. I had expected 'em to at least put a 302 in the thing, and a 351 Windsor or 390 big-block if they were smart! Again, pathetic.

no? if they attempted that they would have to remove all that lovely environmental and emissions gear.

80-90 mustangs are alright looking cars but the early 70s ones were nice. not the mustang 2. i always liked the 74 mad max falcon though. put dual turbos on it and you got something special.

i've also grown to like the AMX from AMC. take a 401 and stick it in a car that weights about as much as a civic. now that is speed.

[OnTheBounce]

The fact that the new Mustang Mach I is based on the old 289 powerplant shows how much of a pussy Ford is lately. I mean, they're getting the same horsepower (305 @ 5800 RPM) as Carroll Shelby got out of it back in '65-66 (306 @ 6000 RPM). Pathetic. I had expected 'em to at least put a 302 in the thing, and a 351 Windsor or 390 big-block if they were smart! Again, pathetic.

The 306 bhp that the Shelby was cranking out in '66 are actually less than any post '71 vehicle rated at 305 bhp. Remember that in '72 the switch was made from gross to net horsepower, the difference being instead of simply slapping the engine on a dynometer the amount of power actually getting to the ground was measured. That means quite a reduction in hp, which is why you see hp figures drop drastically for the '72 model year. For instance, the 302 in '71 was rated at 210 bhp, but the same engine in '72 was rated at only 141 bhp. (Of course, some manufacturers actually underrated their engine, but that was usually only at the top of the scale.)

OTB

[Doyle]

I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to have missed Grey Fil's message; I thought it was quite obvious. He's not bringing up additional policy issues to create another endless debate, he's trying to demonstrate why it's a bad idea to create laws to enforce popular, or unpopular for that matter, attitudes.

I think it's great point that could be expanded even further. If you look at the way most people approach politics, they're very selfish. I think any given voter, although there are obviously exceptions, wants to tell people what to do, but not be told what to do. They want to see how much they can get from the government while minimizing how much they give. Whether you're talking about transfer payments (welfare), subsidies for charities, homosexual marriage, or gun control we see people who push for their legislation or for their handouts regardless of the legality of it all.

[OnTheBounce]

I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to have missed Grey Fil's message; I thought it was quite obvious.

As far as I can see, only two people seem to have missed it. That being Murphy and MFG. The topic shifted to muscle and/or pony cars after that.

He's not bringing up additional policy issues to create another endless debate, he's trying to demonstrate why it's a bad idea to create laws to enforce popular, or unpopular for that matter, attitudes.

Let's shift the topic yet again in this thread. (To think it all started off w/a mystery projectile...)

What -- exactly* -- do you think that laws should be passed for? What is their purpose? What are the limitations of law?

OTB

* I say "exactly" in the sense that I'd like you to be precise, not in a snotty/combative sense.

[Doyle]

As far as I can see, only two people seem to have missed it.

And I'm amazed that even two people missed it. It's quite clear.

Let's shift the topic yet again in this thread. (To think it all started off w/a mystery projectile...)

What -- exactly* -- do you think that laws should be passed for? What is their purpose? What are the limitations of law?

OTB

* I say "exactly" in the sense that I'd like you to be precise, not in a snotty/combative sense.

It's not so much what laws get passed as it is how laws get passed. Look at prohibition, when that was tried an amendment was passed because the Constitution didn't grant the government that kind of authority. The first gun control law was actually an interstate commerce tax law. There's no authority to ban any type of gun whatsoever in the Constitution, so they passed a restrictive tax instead.

Look at some of the laws we have today. Have you seen any amendment to make drugs illegal, even that the state level? Have you seen any amendments that make it okay to ban certain types of guns? Where does Dubya get the authority to give money to certain charities, or to have vouchers for private school?

You know, I don't want a Libertarian-style government. I think history has adequately demonstrated that we need more government than that. However, when we expand the roles or powers of government, it needs to happen legally.

[OnTheBounce]

And I'm amazed that even two people missed it. It's quite clear.

Doyle, you are an unrepentant optimist. Your faith in your fellow humans' ability to reason shows that.

It's not so much what laws get passed as it is how laws get passed. Look at prohibition, when that was tried an amendment was passed because the Constitution didn't grant the government that kind of authority. The first gun control law was actually an interstate commerce tax law. There's no authority to ban any type of gun whatsoever in the Constitution, so they passed a restrictive tax instead.

I suppose you're having a hard time coming to grips with the way the Feds are hitting people up these days by taking them to Civil Court rather than Criminal Court, simply to get around the higher burden of proof in the latter.

This is an age-old problem, really. The problem is essentially one of intent versus actuality, and limitations of language alone make things difficult enough, but when you factor in personal bias and agendas it becomes just damned near impossible. The only solution -- and it seems there are no panaceas -- is to fight each of these things one at a time, as they crop up. Essentially, our legal system undergoes the same series of revision that the theory behind a mature scientific discipline undergoes as time goes on.

However, one thing about how the Constitution is that it wasn't set up to be an immutable document, written in the same stone that was lugged down from Sinai way back in 1750 BCE. The Constitution as written allows for its own scrapping, any time enough people say it's to be done. (I can't quote chapter and verse, but it you really need it, I can look it up.)

Look at some of the laws we have today. Have you seen any amendment to make drugs illegal, even that the state level? Have you seen any amendments that make it okay to ban certain types of guns? Where does Dubya get the authority to give money to certain charities, or to have vouchers for private school?

You'll find no arguments w/me on some of these issues, but at the same time, I'd point out that the Constitution gives the States wide latitude to do pretty much whatever they want to within their own jurisdictions.

There are no easy answers for some of these issues. Presidents have been over-stepping their constitutional authority for a long time, damned near as soon as the ink had dried, actually. Then again, political realities as well as technological ones have made some of the older ideas of gov't pretty much obsolete. For instance, had the Soviet Union launched a massive nuclear strike there would have been no time to convene Congress in order to get a formal declaration of war. Somebody has to act, right then and there.

You know, I don't want a Libertarian-style government. I think history has adequately demonstrated that we need more government than that. However, when we expand the roles or powers of government, it needs to happen legally.

That's good. Lots of people are in favor of repealing lots of things that aren't allowed for in the constitution. But personally, I don't want to see the FDA go away, just so that I can have to worry about booze that'll blind me, rotten food, shitty water (perhaps, more correctly: water shittier than it already is), etc., etc.

I think it's come time for a really, really radical revision of the Constitution. Rather than prancing about haphazardly on the crumbled foundations laid over two centuries ago it's time to sit down and come up with something new.

Of course, that's likely not going to happen. Too many people are too powerful the way things are to let anyone or anything upset their apple cart. Since we can't count on our youth to man the barricades (they're too obsessed with their silly little pleasures and/or making sure they can be one of those profiting from the status quo) I have very few illusions about things changing in my lifetime.

OTB

[Doyle]

Doyle, you are an unrepentant optimist. Your faith in your fellow humans' ability to reason shows that.

Yeah, I've got a real weakness for those assholes. Humans, that is.

However, one thing about how the Constitution is that it wasn't set up to be an immutable document, written in the same stone that was lugged down from Sinai way back in 1750 BCE. The Constitution as written allows for its own scrapping, any time enough people say it's to be done. (I can't quote chapter and verse, but it you really need it, I can look it up.)

Sure, the Constitution contains provisions for change, but it's far more than just a general statement of political philosophy. Well else would Article 1 enumerate the power of Congress to grant copyrights, coin money, and establish post offices? These powers should be inherent to sovereign nations, they wouldn't be included with a mission statement.

That's what irks me when people call the Constitution a "living document" to justify whatever stupid law they want to pass. It can change, but it forms a legitimate legal framework -- a list of what powers the federal government possesses. That's why the preamble to the Bill of Rights, as much a legal part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights itself, makes references to "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" on the power of the government.

You'll find no arguments w/me on some of these issues, but at the same time, I'd point out that the Constitution gives the States wide latitude to do pretty much whatever they want to within their own jurisdictions.

To a certain extent you're right. The idea behind the states is that these are sovereign bodies within a larger sovereign. Amendment 10 spells is out clearly:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the states

Of course, the states are in turn bound by their own state constitutions, and they were further limited when the 14th Amendment explicitly made the Bill of Rights inclusive:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

(FYI, notice that it says "privileges." The Constitution doesn't grant privileges to citizens, it recognizes pre-existing rights. Hell, that's what a Bill of Rights is. You might occasionally see them in other legal documents and they're always the same thing; a recognition of the pre-existing rights of those entering into the contract. This amendment was passed in 1868, and this wording may already have reflected changing views of the role of the government. Just look at which side won the war.)

So, it's fine for states to have powers beyond what the feds have, but even then there are a lot of limits.

Then again, political realities as well as technological ones have made some of the older ideas of gov't pretty much obsolete. For instance, had the Soviet Union launched a massive nuclear strike there would have been no time to convene Congress in order to get a formal declaration of war. Somebody has to act, right then and there.

Well, I think this specific example might fall under the President's Commander-in-Chief duties, but even if it didn't there's no reason that an amendment couldn't be passed.

I think it's come time for a really, really radical revision of the Constitution. Rather than prancing about haphazardly on the crumbled foundations laid over two centuries ago it's time to sit down and come up with something new.

Maybe. Of course, it would be penned and ratified by the people already in power which is not a comforting thought to me.

Of course, that's likely not going to happen. Too many people are too powerful the way things are to let anyone or anything upset their apple cart. Since we can't count on our youth to man the barricades (they're too obsessed with their silly little pleasures and/or making sure they can be one of those profiting from the status quo) I have very few illusions about things changing in my lifetime.

Yeah, it's a bad situation, and the problem with younger members of our society isn't likely to get better while these very same people in power are making decisions about the curriculum. I think the history and law programs are in especially bad shape. Every time another kid comes out of junior high believing the Civil War was about slavery, or too illiterate to find out for himself for that matter, hopes for improvement get slimmer.

Of course, I'm only 19 and I figured this shit out for myself, so there's still some hope.

BTW, there has to be a delicious quote somewhere about people controlling education controlling the populace, or stupid people being easier to control. Anyone know of one?

[Kashluk]

You'd be wise to shut up about that unless you want another raging pro-control/pro-gun debate (which'll happen when/if Kash puts his two cents in).

I won't. We've seen enough flaming over that topic.

Cars should only be used as a means of transportation and not as a status symbol, limite size and fuel consumption.

Bullshit. I like my 302 Mustang and nobody will take it from me. Ever see a BOSS 429 Mustang? My God its HUGE!! (the engine that is)

Well, the guy has a point there. They are means of transportation. Of course, people should be allowed to have luxury things as well but this means we have to invent a cheap, non-polluting and highly available fuel for those vehicles to consume. If we're talking about oil-based vehicles here, I'm completely behind "... not as a status symbol, limite size and fuel consumption". They pollute, they spend tons of expensive fuel, which is going to run out within 50-250 years (depending on the research).

To make it illegal or not - I'm not commenting on that one. Just saying that using cars like that is a waste, pretty much like any luxury, but people have a right to have them.

----

They have 1 child policy in China, not 2.

----------------------------------------------------------

Generally - too little laws controlling people's lives is better than too much.

Authorities are, like Doyle said, good to have but then we come to the point: different people like different rules.

Just that majority agrees with "killing is wrong" doesn't mean they agree with "ban all guns" as well.

I guess small sized communities, where people who like to live under -these and these- rules live together, are the best choice. World of anarchy, with little spots of "civilization" amongst it. If you don't like the law, move to another town/village or start wandering.

Foraging, farming and hunting as the ways of living and world population of 500 000 000. That's the best choice, IMO, but then again it's against average ethics.

[Grey Fil]

First things first!

Doyle is one smartie gentleman. For the other less capable of captioning my humble rant here it goes to the point.

The BS about 2nd hand smoke is BS, there is plenty of proof that smoking is harmful to health, but 2nd hand smoke being more harmful then first hand is silly! Why? Because people have being smoking near each other for centuries and if 2nd hand smoke where more dangerous then first hand... PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ACTIVE SMOKERS WOULD HAVE MORE LUNG DISEASES THEN ACTIVE SMOKERS.
So that fucking piece of BS was created to justify one thing. That people who dont like smoke can interfere AS MUCH AS THEY WANT in the right of others doing so.
There are huge numbers of cases where this kind of shit has been used. Masturbation and blindness for example.

What I wanted to say was that any legislation must be made to satisfy as manny people as possible with the least damage to the smallest number of people. In the case at hand it is all right and dandy to impose limits on where to smoke but it often goes out of hand and smokers are persecuted like pests. I am a smoker and I have the right to smoke. If some people think that I am less because of this I would like to point out that I am also a law abiding citizen who pays his taxes, a good husband and father, a hard working man who contributes in his own way to the progress and welfare of the society i live in. Not all righteous healt freaks who dont smoke can do the same.

[Viktor]

I think it's come time for a really, really radical revision of the Constitution. Rather than prancing about haphazardly on the crumbled foundations laid over two centuries ago it's time to sit down and come up with something new.

OTB

Make it a really good one and include Airbase 1 in it as us Brits only have the Magna Carta and no bugger every paid it any attention anyway....

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

Yeah, it's a bad situation, and the problem with younger members of our society isn't likely to get better while these very same people in power are making decisions about the curriculum. I think the history and law programs are in especially bad shape. Every time another kid comes out of junior high believing the Civil War was about slavery, or too illiterate to find out for himself for that matter, hopes for improvement get slimmer.

you gotta admit that slavery was part of the reason for the civil war if not one of the major features it revolved around.

i would guess that your american history would be better than canada's seeing as how it is your countries history but i could be very wrong.

I think it's great point that could be expanded even further. If you look at the way most people approach politics, they're very selfish. I think any given voter, although there are obviously exceptions, wants to tell people what to do, but not be told what to do. They want to see how much they can get from the government while minimizing how much they give. Whether you're talking about transfer payments (welfare), subsidies for charities, homosexual marriage, or gun control we see people who push for their legislation or for their handouts regardless of the legality of it all.

i wish people would have to work to vote like in starship troopers but i guess that is against democracy eh?

people always try to get more for less, its human nature.
like all the indian bitching in ontario allows anyone with native american heritige to get shitloads of money a month from the government just for being an indian. tell me that isnt wrong.

people shouldnt be able to get welfare and charities shouldnt be subsidized. if you cant support yourself, you are fucked. oh and homosexuals shouldnt be able to get married but thats all a matter of opinion.

theres this big shit in ontario parlament right now about catholic school families being subsidized for sending their kids to better schools because of the cost of catholic schools. now the liberal federal government is cutting the subsidizing so everyone is bitching.

does anyone see the point in subsidizing rich families for sending their kids to better schools than everyone else?
they sent their kids there and paid the money so shouldnt they have to deal with it?

[Doyle]

you gotta admit that slavery was part of the reason for the civil war if not one of the major features it revolved around.

Nope. If it truly were, it wouldn't have taken Lincoln three years to pass the emancipation proclamation.

[Kashluk]

No one in America cared about the blacks at that time, it's too blue-eyed to think the North was a rescue-team.