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; Originally posted by mart_man00 im not trying to be offensive here, but your one of the few people i know ...

  1. #31
    Unregd
    Guest
    Originally posted by mart_man00
    im not trying to be offensive here, but your one of the few people i know of that actually thinks about this stuff in a logical way, why do you tend to go for the democrats? like you said they all change and sometimes its a lesser of 2 evils deal but what tends to make the democrats a better choice?

    maybe a real discussion here would work out.
    I tried typing this response yesterday, but there was an error, and the message was gone when I clicked back. Let's see if I can retype what I wrote as eloquently as before:

    If a person is repulsed by the Republican Party's interpretation of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," that pushes the person to the party that generally opposes such a view. If a person feels a Republican president has contempt for the diplomatic process and prefers using U.S. might to solve the world's problems, the person is pushed further to those who have an alternative. If a person believes a tax cut is irresponsible considering huge defense costs and the need to protect certain federal social programs, the person is pushed toward the opposition.

    The Democrats certainly aren't angels, and I don't agree completely with their platform or the actions of each Democrat, but the Democratic Party seems more willing to use the government to better society. I'm not talking about an unlimited, authoritarian state, as some conservative pundits insist; I'm only talking about society, functioning through its government, using its collective resources (i.e., tax revenue) to address social and economic problems that cannot be well addressed "by letting the market do its thing." Some good examples in recent history are civil rights for racial and religious minorities, women, and homosexuals. At the same time, the Democrats have been willing to use tax money to provide federal grants and loans to college students; regulations protecting employees, consumers, and investers from corporate abuse; and environmental protection and antipollution measures. The Republicans only seem willing to use tax money to buy more missiles and aircraft carriers and to subsidize religious charities and schools--oh, and of course farmers.

    Democrats and Republicans, in a bipartisan effort to ........ me off, have passed legislation not at all to my liking--the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the USA PATRIOT Act are good examples--but you cannot expect parties that get their campaign money from wealthy corporate donors to be truly democratic voices.

    All in all, it's what you believe is important and valuable. I can't see how decisions could be made "realistically" without some sort of ideology because ideologies are really beliefs about which values should weigh heavier in making decisions (e.g., liberalism, probably closest to what I am, considers individual rights and freedoms, equal opportunity, secular democratic government, etc.; conservatism values traditional solutions, which means the free market, family, and religion in America; socialism values equality in condition, state ownership of industry, collective before individual, etc.). Often if a person believes in one thing, certain other beliefs naturally follow, and that's what ideologies are.

  2. #32
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    rewritting the constitutions is better for the people?
    *laughs hysterically*

    i hate there gun control
    What worries me is that people like you make up the moronic masses of the world, and hence have far more influence than those of us with IQs in multiple figures.

  3. #33
    ingall
    Guest
    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.
    I would try to list the damage, but it seems rather useless, since "no matter what [I] say," you will still disagree.

    2) Yes, please forgive me for my complete lack of intelligence (i.e. not agreeing with you)
    I don't understand how this follows from anything I said. Your lack of intelligence is manifest not in disagreeing with me, but through your inane comments.

    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?
    Well, we managed to arm ourselves well enough to defend ourself from the British, to take vast amounts of territory from Mexico, and to fight a destructive war between ourselves. However, we might not have had enough armanents to fight a war in Vietnam. Thank God THAT didn't happen.

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    913
    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.
    we cant take of of n korea or iraq after hearing of their plans, we have to study the effects of the nuclear holocaust first. even though it sounds bad on paper could could work out in life. its only a few million people. thinking before hand, hell, thinking just gets in the way.

    nice one comrade

  5. #35
    ingall
    Guest
    we cant take of of n korea or iraq after hearing of their plans, we have to study the effects of the nuclear holocaust first. even though it sounds bad on paper could could work out in life. its only a few million people. thinking before hand, hell, thinking just gets in the way.

    nice one comrade
    This is bizarre. I was saying that knowing the wording of legislation passed well over a century ago is not equivalent to knowing the effects. Apparently, you think I was saying that...well, I am really not sure. Something about how we should wait until Iraq nukes us. I really don't see the correlation here...

  6. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    913
    the correlation was that you cant just wait and see for everything.

    if we now of something shouldnt we try to stop it? while some things in the constitition did need changing(basicly the 3/5 stuff. im glad some one mention that one). while the framers could come up with everything i think they had the right idea. we should of kept it and adjusted some laws.

    wait i really dont like is how states were set up. vermont and texas under stand right to keep and bear arms but not ca, if seperate states didnt run so much like seperate countries it probally would of worked out better. but then again the framers had bad experences with that kind of control.

  7. #37
    ingall
    Guest
    the correlation was that you cant just wait and see for everything.
    But I am not saying we should wait and see for anything. We can't wait and see about the effects of the fourteenth amendments, which was what I was discussing, since it was passed over a hundred years ago. I am saying that looking at its effects, I consider it a disaster. I do not understand where your objection to my line of thought comes from.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    25

    You people

    I don't think someone should vote for someone just because they follow that party. They should look at both canidates and pick which one they think will preform better. Just my thought.
    I agree with that, but I'm a recovering Democrat. My name is Will, and I'm a Republican. Reasons why I switched? Read on:

    - some Democrats in the Senate seems to think that even if a baby is fortunate enough to survive a failed abortion it can be legally killed (Senator Barbara Boxer of California). At the same time, Sen. Datschule and his cronies killed a law that would protect pro-life doctors, nurses and other health care professionals who object to abortion on moral grounds from discrimination. The bill also would protect hospitals that refuse to perform abortions against efforts to compel them to offer such "services."

    - evidently some Democrats see no need for reasonable ethics guidelines such as research using human subjects (Sen. Sam Brownback)

    - Because of the persistence of some Democrats, the Pledge of Allegiance is under fire. But if the Pledge is unconstitutional because it mentions God, the Declaration of Independence must be illegal, too, with its reference to the Creator as the author of our liberties.

    Ok, QSR seem to have taken alot of heat because of the Democrats re-writing the constitution statement. All of you who called him a "moron" misread what he was trying to say. Yes, re-writing the constitution through admentments can be one way but I'm pretty sure he was talking about the way the leftist Democrat interprets the Constitution from the way the rest of the country views it.

    And the fact they can be so partisan during a time in which our troops are on foreign soil makes me sick (Former Pres. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter; Senators Kennedy, Sarbanes, Durbin, and Boxer; Represenatives Doggett, Lee, Kucinich, and Pelosi). I can go into more but I'll stop there.

    Rack me, I'm out.

  9. #39
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    some Democrats in the Senate seems to think that even if a baby is fortunate enough to survive a failed abortion it can be legally killed (Senator Barbara Boxer of California). At the same time, Sen. Datschule and his cronies killed a law that would protect pro-life doctors, nurses and other health care professionals who object to abortion on moral grounds from discrimination. The bill also would protect hospitals that refuse to perform abortions against efforts to compel them to offer such "services."
    Wow, the more i read about these Democrats of yours the more i like them.

    But if the Pledge is unconstitutional because it mentions God...
    Man it just gets better and better.

    Seriously though, from what i can see Democrats = Good and Repulicans = Evil, surely it can't be that simple?

    And the fact they can be so partisan during a time in which our troops are on foreign soil makes me sick (Former Pres. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter; Senators Kennedy, Sarbanes, Durbin, and Boxer; Represenatives Doggett, Lee, Kucinich, and Pelosi
    Surely you can see that they aren't being partisan, partisan is BIASED, why on Earth would former presidents and senators of the US be BIASED against the US? Thats crazy, the whole point is that they aren't being partisan, they are simply telling it how they see it.

  10. #40
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    im still waiting for OSR to tell me why we "must" grow tabacco when no one here does....

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    913
    im still waiting for OSR to tell me why we "must" grow tabacco when no one here does....
    i live in hillbilly country and it not done here either.

  12. #42
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    Originally posted by mart_man00
    i live in hillbilly country and it not done here either.
    me too, must be a city thing

  13. #43
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    Originally posted by ingall
    I would try to list the damage, but it seems rather useless, since "no matter what I say," you will still disagree.
    Ohh, enlighten me. Please do.


    Originally posted by ingall
    I don't understand how this follows from anything I said. Your lack of intelligence is manifest not in disagreeing with me, but through your inane comments.
    Why thank you.


    Originally posted by ingall
    Well, we managed to arm ourselves well enough to defend ourself from the British, to take vast amounts of territory from Mexico, and to fight a destructive war between ourselves. However, we might not have had enough armanents to fight a war in Vietnam. Thank God THAT didn't happen.
    War of 1812? Maybe you are referring to the Revolutionary War? The only reason we won is that the British stopped caring and the French helped out. If the Brits cared enough about the US, they would have won the war.

  14. #44
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    The only reason we won is that the British stopped caring and the French helped out. If the Brits cared enough about the US, they would have won the war.
    You know i think were actually in agreement for once. I have always kind of thought this myself, but no body has ever really agreed with me, especially my history teachers lol.

  15. #45
    Unregd
    Guest
    I admit it was a pretty construed judgment to say that the Constitution itself guarantees a right for a woman to have an abortion (it does not say she cannot have an abortion either), but both parties have been willing to stretch or modernize their interpretations of the Constitution to better serve their special interests.

    Second Constitutional Amendment:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    I cannot see how this amendment provides an unlimited right for anyone to carry any sort of weapon whenever and wherever they want. It seems pretty clear to me that the intention of this amendment was to provide an armed militia (National Guard) to defend the country from foreign attack. It provides no constitutional basis for concealed-carry laws, which allow people to carry concealed guns into schools, malls, stadiums, etc.

    I also cannot see why a person would feel it is wrong to criticize their government for doing something they believe is contrary to the fundamental principles under which the country gained independence. If the objective of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was to improve the nation's security, there was a more peaceful route. If the reason was to liberate the Iraqis from an autocratic government, there were better ways that would have demonstrated the Iraqi peoples' consent.

    That Pledge of Allegiance need not be mentioned further. The original ruling was the right one: It is unconstitutional for establishing religion. Yes, the design of the currency is also unconstitutional. The United States is a secular nation. People have the right to follow their conscience. A government is not supposed to presume its citizens' beliefs or impose beliefs upon them. When Congress legislated "One Nation / under God," it presumed its citizens' religious beliefs and minimally imposed its religious beliefs on the people. This phrase is degrading to non-monotheists and monotheists who do not believe their deity should be called "God." This Pledge shows that the government believes that those who do not believe in "God" are somehow less than true citizens and are deviant from the fundamental precepts of American government mentioned in the next few lines of the Pledge: "Indivisible / With Liberty and Justice for all."

Page 3 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, 10:01 AM
  2. First party tracking cookies Meow!
    By kryptkat in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-12-2006, 06:29 PM
  3. Lan Party
    By RoD in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-14-2002, 05:14 PM
  4. Party question
    By Barjor in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-18-2002, 02:39 PM

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