whats your party?

This is a discussion on whats your party? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; I hate both parties -- I'm looking for someone who will LEAD this country and at the same time cutout ...

  1. #16
    UNBANNED OneStiffRod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    669
    I hate both parties -- I'm looking for someone who will LEAD this country and at the same time cutout the BS and concur that we need LESS LAWS and POLICE and that's what we should be working toward... that is a true measure of a good society not more laws and a police state.

    If someone said they would propose a few billion dollars to transition TABACCO from being an insurance crop to having a renewable energy crop be that insurance crop and have at least So. America do the same we could have a real alternative to OIL... it's called leadership, and I would vote for that person.

    PS: for ppl who don't know - here in the US if you're a farmer u MUST grow tobacco on your farm each crop cycle in order to insure your crop of whatever you grow - insurance companies require it - if we changed this to be a renewable energy crop I think the world could be changed.
    My Avatar says: "Stay in School"

    Rocco is the Boy!
    "SHUT YOUR LIPS..."

  2. #17
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    PS: for ppl who don't know - here in the US if you're a farmer u MUST grow tobacco on your farm each crop cycle in order to insure your crop of whatever you grow - insurance companies require it - if we changed this to be a renewable energy crop I think the world could be changed.
    Alot of family's in my town rely on farming to make a living, and none of them have ever heard of this before, i would like to see your source on this. And were in the US :P

  3. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    913
    All, and they should as well.
    i think this causes alot of problems. polititions try to impress this ever growing crowd and keep them happy so they have easy jobs. i dont mean only people with masters degress should vote but if you dont know they guys name or one thing he stands for you shouldnt be in the same building.

    Personally, I tend to lean democratic because they are more for the good of the people (all the people).
    rewritting the constitutions is better for the people? more joke laws but less enforcement is better? light sentences for hard crimes?

    maybe im missing something here, any specific things? so far the few things i don agree on with the democrats are the same thing republicans have been screaming for years.

    i hate there gun control and the computer crims(i know bush's side is behind some of it, but they helped!)

  4. #19
    Registered User whistlenm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    124
    ...the Realist party, or the party that believes that a decision should be made on the merits of the argument and not on ideologies - social, economic, or religious - at the expense of the people who are truly affected. Oh crap no such party exists!

    Man's mind once streched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions
    - Oliver Wendell Holmes

    In other words, if you teach your cat to bark (output) and eat dog food (input) that doesn't make him a dog. It would have to chase cars, chew bones, and have puppies before I'd call it Rover ;-)
    - WaltP

  5. #20
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    No party affiliation here. But my philosophy is live and let live.

  6. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    I'm of the Baath (sp?) party.

  7. #22
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    Originally posted by mart_man00
    rewritting the constitutions is better for the people?
    In some cases, yes. At this point, if the constitution were to stand and never have been modified, we'd be in a pretty bad place. There's a reason why the framers allowed the constitution to be modified.

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    20
    Toga,

    they , re all uniformed

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    913
    In some cases, yes. At this point, if the constitution were to stand and never have been modified, we'd be in a pretty bad place.
    how do you figure? the new security measures and gun control our the only biggies i can come up with. both times the constitution should of stayed untouched. you have to remember im in the american educational system, as in i will never learn anything american, like the constitution.
    Last edited by mart_man00; 04-30-2003 at 09:06 PM.

  10. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    75
    Rewriting the constitution bad? You must mean something other than what you sound like you're saying.

    Various positive changes to the Constitution:
    editing out the 3/5ths compromise
    the first ten amendments -- the Bill of Rights being an addition to the Constitution
    the 13-15th Amendments
    the 19th Amendment
    As an administrative issue, the 20th Amendment doesn't seem negative, at least.
    I was born; I shall die. Between those two events there is life. I don't know why, and I don't question it; I merely live.

  11. #26
    ingall
    Guest
    In some cases, yes. At this point, if the constitution were to stand and never have been modified, we'd be in a pretty bad place. There's a reason why the framers allowed the constitution to be modified.
    i think he meant rewriting the constitution through use of the supreme court.

    and how many good amendments have there been since the first eleven or so?

    12slightly alters/clarifies the method for electing the prez and vp. This doesnt really do any harm.

    13 abolishes slavery. This is good

    14 has been an utter disaster. Section 1 has been used to change the first amendment and others from documents of federalism (feds vs states) to civil liberties (individuals vs states/feds). It has also been an important factor in placing the states under the virtual control of the federal judiciary (for example, now a federal judge has the power to order a state to raise money for specific purposes, thereby giving the judge the taxing power, which is reserved for the legislature). Section 2 massively disenfranchised the South after the Civil War.

    15 prohibits voting discrimination on account of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Good, but also deals some control to the feds.

    16 establishes an income tax, giving rise to the modern warfare/welfare state. [understatement] This hasn't worked out so hot. [/understatement]

    17 also reduces the power of the states by allowing for the general election of senators instead of the original method by legislative appointment, but probably hasnt made that much of a diff.

    19 lets women vote. One may think its fair and all that good stuff, but it prolly hasnt made America a better place. Or worse place.

    21 is one of the best amendments, but only cuz it repeals 18, or prohibition.

    20 deals with dead presidents, vp's etc. Not very important

    22 establishes term limits. If not for this, Clinton might be president right now, so its hard not to like this one.

    23 lets DC in on the action

    24 gets rid of poll taxes. hot damn.

    25 deals with dead and incompetent presidents, etc. See above.

    26 lowers voting age to 18. That has probably made this country a much better place. Right.

    27 deals with congressional pay. Oh boy.


    So how many of these are indispensable? 3? 4?

  12. #27
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    Amendment 14: (quote the government, nevermore)
    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Wow, that part is so horrible.


    Amendment 15:
    I fail to see how this one is bad.



    Amendment 16:
    Yeah, that whole idea of giving the government money really sucks. I mean seriously, with money, they can actually do stuff (like protect our country).




    You are either a troll or an absolute idiot.

  13. #28
    ingall
    Guest
    Wow, that part is so horrible.
    I assume this is sarcastic. Here is lesson one, Einstein. To know the effects of a piece of legislation, you cannot merely read the legislation. You have to...wait for it, wait for it...study the effects of the piece of legislation! Can your mind grasp that concept? Are you aware of the effects? If you ask I will be happy to expand upon the subject. If you would have read my post, or perhaps if you had sufficient intelligence to understand it, you would have known one or two. Of course, that is too much to ask of your plantlike brain.

    Amendment 15:
    I fail to see how this one is bad.
    It's not bad. Perhaps you missed the comment I wrote: "Good, but also deals some control to the feds." Are you unaware of the meaning of the four letter "g" "o" "o" and "d" when taken in that order. Perhaps you should use a dictionary. I would recommend the OED, but no doubt its complexities and extra information would distract you from the definition. I expect, however, that the defintions at www.dictionary.com are just within your reach. Have you looked up "good" yet? Now do you understand my comment? For most of us, it is rather easy to see that "Good, but..." conveys a feeling of mixed approval, or perhaps ambivalence.

    Amendment 16:
    Yeah, that whole idea of giving the government money really sucks. I mean seriously, with money, they can actually do stuff (like protect our country).
    Hmmm. Another demonstration of golfinguy4's intellectual brainpower. Let us examine the flaws. He assumes that I am of the opinion that the "whole idea of giving the government money really sucks." I am not quite sure of his reasons for this - I quite agree that governments, to function effectively, or "actually do stuff," must have money. If golfinguy4 is of the opinion that the only method for a government to obtain money is an income tax, then perhaps he is not aware that for approximately 125 years this country managed to survive, somehow, without an income tax. Does golfinguy4 believe that it operated upon donations? Piracy? I do not pretend to the level of psychological knowledge necessary to investigate the random workings of his pathetic brain.

    If you would like any clarification, I will only be too glad to try to educate you, vain task though it may be.

  14. #29
    the hat of redundancy hat nvoigt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    3,139
    If the Green party split up into a realist and a moralist part, I would vote for the realists ( including foreign minister Fischer ). As they don't, and moralists still have trouble following contracts like Nato without debatting for two or three days, I rather vote for one of the big parties. Unlike the US, our government is build by at least two parties anyway, as we have about 5 serious parties here and none is strong enough to muster the 50+ percent needed on their own.

    Too many people are influenced by what politicians say. I guess 25% of germans were actively anti-war. Another 25% were pro-war. The rest is just following the fashion of the year and screaming "peace peace peace". Mr. Schröders political statements for peace would have been more credible if he had made them before his campaign started. In my oppinion, had the year not been an election year, we would have Troops in Iraq by now. Not very helpful Troops, maybe ABC-Protection vehicles or cooks or people building and cleaning toilets for US Boys, but we would be there. But it gets more votes proclaiming peace. And who would call for war as a german politician when the other candidate calls for peace ? Oh well, $$$$ global politics, lets get re-elected.

    Sometimes I wish we could have standardized test before voting, so that only people with an informed oppinion could vote. I hate those fashion voters who always run after the party with the latest political buzzwords.
    hth
    -nv

    She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."

    When in doubt, read the FAQ.
    Then ask a smart question.

  15. #30
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    1) No matter what you say, I fail to see how anything that came as a result of the 14th amendment is worse than the benefits is reaped.

    2) Yes, please forgive me for my complete lack of intelligence (i.e. not agreeing with you)

    3) Yes, the government survived without an income tax for a while. But, how big was our military? If we had a military that size in today's world, how would we stand against belligerent nations?

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Swedish Pirate (as in, comp) Party wins seats in Brussels!
    By MK27 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 11:01 AM
  2. First party tracking cookies Meow!
    By kryptkat in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-12-2006, 07:29 PM
  3. Lan Party
    By RoD in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-14-2002, 06:14 PM
  4. Party question
    By Barjor in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-18-2002, 03:39 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21