Is a new America civil war inevitable and unstopable at this point?

I think it hasn't gotten to this point yet.

http://www.senate.gov/vtour/sumner.htm

 

Then deal with them at that future time if and when it occurs, until then it is a whole lot of yelling and whining about nothing.

 

So then we shouldn't worry about the potential for a constitutional crisis......good to know.

 

Their definition of "unemployment" changes with age.

Clarification:

un·em·ploy·ment [uhn-em-ploi-muhnt]
noun
1. the state of being unemployed, especially involuntarily: Automation poses a threat of unemployment for many unskilled workers.
2. the number of persons who are unemployed.
3. Informal. unemployment benefit.

un·em·ployed [uhn-em-ploid]
adjective
1. not employed; without a job; out of work: an unemployed secretary.
2. not currently in use: unemployed productive capacity.
3. not productively used: unemployed capital.
noun
4. ( used with a plural verb ) people who do not have jobs (usually preceded by the ): programs to help the unemployed.

 

I notice you criticize people for having a "distorted" view (which seems to mean a view that differs from yours) with nothing to back it up, then present your own view which has nothing to back it up.

Thats part of the problem, people dismiss alternatives as being misinformed and confused. When one side brushes off the other side as mere "astroturf" and not worthy of consideration, there can be no discussion. When the brush off is from those in power, then the political arena is closed to the alternative view leaving them with no recourse within the system - hence the topic of this thread..

 

But there is little to no difference between one corporate owned sock puppet of one party in the two party scam than another.

 

Do have issues with reading, I said deal with it when it occurs and I also suggested that being involved at the State and yes Federal level, as in voting and helping people get elected is a way to deal with now and in the future. So you might want to drop what you Think is good to know and actually read and think about what others post, then you might actually Know something.

- - - Updated - - -

And that is Your, Mine and every other Voters fault, we ALLOW it to continue.

 

Once again.

You provided a citation- even told us it was on page 4.

The citation you provided us didn't say what you said it said.

It very clearly distinguished between 'unemployment'(what you claimed) and the 90.6 million which you claimed, which are

"More typically, persons who are not in the labor force do not currently want a job, often because they are retired, attending to family responsibilities, going to school or too ill or disabled to work"

So your 'unemployed consists mainly of the retired, students, stay at home moms and those too disabled to work.

If you are going to make an argument- and cite a source- then when you blatantly misrepresent what the source says, why should we overlook that?

 

If you cannot logically figure out that what was wrong in the post I replied to means you are having issues with reality vrs opinion, one of us has actually looking into or has first hand experience and one of us is simply mouthing the thoughts others have fed them. Go do some research for yourself and see whether what I stated or what the post I replied to claimed to be truth is true or not and get back to me, then we can actuallys share information, trying to make it about me will get you nothing but ignored.

 

I don't decide who the people are allowed to vote for, that is determined by a handful of rich white guys on a country club golf course somewhere.

Head or gut isn't a choice no matter how much the two party scam says it is..

 

Fine... let's just call them "Not in Labor Force," which clearly means the exact opposite of "Unemployed" as defined above.

I wonder, then, how many "students" are staying in school for advanced degrees, because they couldn't find employment in the market place? Does the report tell you that? How about those who decided to stay home to take care of the kids, because they couldn't find employment? How about those who were forced to retire, due to businesses closing or businesses cutting employees?

Do they not count in your unemployment numbers?

Seems like you're playing a game to me, just like the Federal Government.

 

It seems to me that you deliberately used the wrong term from your citation in order to inflate your unemployment claims.

 

I see, so you think that I think that you think that you know something that I should think about.

 

Wrong, if enough people are willing to support a candidatte they can and often do get that person voted into office, heck look a Paul supporters, if they can do it anyone can. Get involved and you might see some improvement, support outlawing Lobbies, do not vote straight ticket EVER, it simply is not rational, support candidates that believe as you do and help get them elected, vote against Reps that do not do as they promised even if you have to vote for the other guy or gal from the Other Party. Proactive is better than no activity.

- - - Updated - - -

You learn more by doing your own homework.

 

All the more reason for the Congress, Both the House and the Senate, to stop playing political power games and do their job, starting with passing a rational budget the funds all current government programs and once that is done start reforming programs so that they remove as much waste as possible and still provide the function they were supposed to provide. Want to save Billions every year, how about they stop sending it to other Nations. ALL other Nations, we cannot afford it and half (if not more) of those we send it to hate us, if you are against all welfare then why you supporting the of the most expensive forms of it and it is not even for Americans, one helps their own before helping people across the planet.

 

You're still arguing semantics and not seeing the number above as a problem in our society. Whether they were "unemployed" or "not in the labor force," it doesn't matter. The people within this number are NOT working for whatever reason and that is the highest this number has ever been in our history of being a nation. I'm sorry that's not a problem for you.

 

I agree with you that we need to stop sending money overseas. However, that cost is dwarfed by what we pay in domestic welfare. Social Security, alone, accounts for 32% of the entire budget. Medicare is another 20%. So half of our expenditures is from two government programs - just two. All of our international affairs, including humanitarian assistance only accounts for 4% of our total spending. Then, when you account for military spending, which is 28%, our international affairs is a pittance. We could do away with all of it and not make a formidable dent in the budget.

Sure, 4% is something and a start... but certainly not nearly enough.

 

No I think you've already cleared up any questions I might have had. There's apparently no reason to believe that a constitutional crisis could ever occur, nothing to be concerned about.

 

Simple alright, very simple.

 

Well, yes, that's pretty much true. The Founding Fathers did a good job apparently

They even provided a means of dealing with a Constitutional crisis should one ever occur, it's called a Constitional Convention, and the means and method of calling one are clearly outlined in the Constitution itself.

Should we ever get to the point where a civil war is called for I believe that is the form it should take. There is a good argument that it should have taken place that way the first time

 

So what do you suppose would happen if some states voted for succession?

 

OK, WHO gets to open the "ammo box", not "when?" or "under what circumstances?" WHO? and be SPECIFIC here, don't say just "the people" because "the people" is just an abstraction for all the groups and individuals the government governs. Is it just liberals? or just conservatives? or anybody with a gun? or WHO?

The reason I ask is fairly obvious. If you say "anybody with a gun" you're saying people can pick and choose which laws they will and won't obey and murder anyone who says different. I don't think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and I don't think that's what all the people who died to preserve this country wanted either.

 

If they rewrite the Constitution and say "States can secede" then clearly, they can. That's what they should have done the first time. I think some actually suggested it but I don't know if they did.

 

You just proved my point beyond all doubt. I rest my case.

 

Who? The 'well regulated militia' referred to in the 2nd amendment. The army of the people. The 2nd amendment is all about giving 'the people' the power to overthrow, by force, a tyrannical government. An armed uprising because the voting (ballot box) process failed. In this context, I find it interesting that our government is trying to limit OUR access to guns while simultaneously supplying others to help overthrow THEIR tyrannical governments. But I digress.

I say, 'everybody with a gun'. It's not (at all) about picking and choosing laws and murdering people. It's about this: the government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around. They should fear the ballot box for their jobs, and if they ignore the ballot box, they should fear for their lives. If the people need to revolt against tyranny or protect their families and property from an invading force, they should have the ability to do so. This, in my opinion, is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment.