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; we probally would of one the revolutionary war even if british cared. we were the snipers, they were the gentlemen. ...

  1. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    913
    we probally would of one the revolutionary war even if british cared. we were the snipers, they were the gentlemen. we knew the land better than they did. we would snipe out there generals and chance we got at any range possible, they spared people like washington because the thought shooting a man that far a way was ungentlemenly.

    and about the religous stuff, will it might be right, its american. when america was founded dont you think most people were religous? if some company wanted to have the workers were in budha we trusts and say a christian fought it he would be made out to be that bad guy. atleast were not saying a perticular god.

    and with guns, right to keep and bear arms. i think some gun laws are good, metal retarded/handicap should have guns, just like criminals. but if a normal person wants to carry one of his legaly owned guns odds are he will be reject. the process(at least around here, i know people with theres.) can take months. and now they say what types of guns you can buy. now "statuday night specials" are bad, they cant possibly be a person first gun or a gun for people with out alot of money to spend, there just for criminals.

    i guess you cant blamed any party for anything, but i stil have to say the republicans are the lesser evil. while we would blow lot of money renewing the military and depts(nsa,cia), wouldnt you want us to be prepared, or should we be like canadians(i live near the border, im allowed to crack candian jokes ) and let some one else do and just read the news papers.

    one thing im am little confussed about is how the democrats what to fix the economy. so taxing the guy that makes a little more than minimum wage so he makes the same if not less that the minimum wager will help people? giving the guy a hard time to pay bills\, like rent is helpful. they guy will be evicted, the landlord wont fill his spot, he will raise rent and it will keep repeating.

    republican style, bost companies, hopefull give more jobs or raises(then they will blow more money, hopefull american.). it might not do wonders, but its a start. we have money to blow on other countries, we should have tons to invest in our companies.

  2. #47
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    the biggest prob with the constitution i think is the many ways it can be interpreted

  3. #48
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    Originally posted by mart_man00
    else do and just read the news papers.

    one thing im am little confussed about is how the democrats what to fix the economy. so taxing the guy that makes a little more than minimum wage so he makes the same if not less that the minimum wager will help people? giving the guy a hard time to pay bills\, like rent is helpful. they guy will be evicted, the landlord wont fill his spot, he will raise rent and it will keep repeating.
    They wouldn't tax the low incomes. They'd tax the higher brackets. Do you really think that Bill Gates would feel the sting of losing an extra million?

  4. #49
    ingall
    Guest
    Ohh, enlighten me. Please do.
    This is pathetic. I would gladly debate the effects of the fourteenth amendment, but you have refused to engage in any argument whatseover. If you would care to answer any points I made in previous posts, referring to either the Constitution or your comments...but that is merely a dream. But for starters, the 14th Amendment has nearly completely destroyed the sovereignty of the states, and wrecked the federalist vision of the Founding Fathers.
    Why thank you.
    Case in point. You fail to show how your comments make any sense, and instead lapse into pseudo-cutting sarcasm.

    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.
    Debatable, but is contrary to the opinions of most historians, though it may be true. In any case, those wars were actually fought on American soil, in defense of our country, unlike most wars of the twentieth century.

  5. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    913
    the biggest prob with the constitution i think is the many ways it can be interpreted
    yup...that helped to screw thing up.

    i only really had one teacher that even mentioned it, but i think he came up with the best way to fix, another revolution.

  6. #51
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    wouldnt help anything. We didnt like britain so we revolted and made the country/constitution. Times have changed and gave new meanings and circumstances.

    So we dont like it and we revolt. Then the cycle continues. Its my honest theory that were not the first advanced civilization on earth. Not at all, see humans contain greed in enough factor to make them strive for me. Society is created and strives until they kill each other, ie nuclear war, and in a million years or whatever it starts again.

  7. #52
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    Originally posted by ingall
    This is pathetic. I would gladly debate the effects of the fourteenth amendment, but you have refused to engage in any argument whatseover. If you would care to answer any points I made in previous posts, referring to either the Constitution or your comments...but that is merely a dream. But for starters, the 14th Amendment has nearly completely destroyed the sovereignty of the states, and wrecked the federalist vision of the Founding Fathers.
    Yes, destroyed sovereignty of states by forcing them to make citiznes of the minorities.





    Originally posted by ingall
    Debatable, but is contrary to the opinions of most historians, though it may be true.
    Source please?



    Originally posted by ingall
    In any case, those wars were actually fought on American soil, in defense of our country, unlike most wars of the twentieth century.
    Yes, cause it would have been much better to wait for Hitler to come to America instead to nab him before he got here.

  8. #53
    ingall
    Guest
    Source please?
    Just the impression I've received from reading on the subject is that the British, after Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown, felt that they would endanger other parts of the empire if they continued fighting. I could ask you for your sources, but it is a waste of time.

    Yes, destroyed sovereignty of states by forcing them to make citiznes of the minorities.
    Well, actually, it the 14th Amendment destroyed the sovereignty of the states by giving the federal government power to regulate all aspects of a state's society that had the slightest connection to minority rights.

    Yes, cause it would have been much better to wait for Hitler to come to America instead to nab him before he got here.
    Do you really think Hitler could have conquered the United States? How? There is a good chance Hitler would still have been defeated at Stalingrad and Kursk without America entering the war. But take the worst case scenario. Hitler has conquered the USSR, Europe, and Britain. Now he needs to invade the United States. Where he does he get the troops to do this? Vast numbers are needed to hold down the USSR. Where does he get the ships? He will need an invasion force that is capable of crossing 3000 miles of ocean, with no islands capable of supplying his fleet. That is rather tough, considering he has a weak nonsubmarine navy. Perhaps he can merely build the ships he needs. He will probably need more than twenty carriers. Even such a huge fleet will give him little strike power, since he cannot use large bombers. A fleet of supply ships. Several hundred transports, if not more. Where does he land? The east coast is easily fortifiable. Mexico? Then he has to fight his way up through very inhospitable country, cross the Rio Grande. Assuming he succeeds, what now? Just march through a huge country and conquer it? Just like that? It will be even harder than the USSR, since he won't have a supply train.

    So Hitler has to build a massive fleet, leave the rest of his empire virtually unguarded, take an expeditionary fleet over 3000 miles, keep it supplied, land...hopefully you get the point by now. The Allied invasion of Normandy took immense effort, and that was crossing the English Channel to French territory. But of course you can explain to me exactly how Hitler can accomplish this.

  9. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    913
    Do you really think Hitler could have conquered the United States? How?
    conquored, not likely. the uboats did enough damage to be embrassing (any one here alive then?) and he his "crack team" did something it would of been even worst. he had plains for sabatoge missions in the us (watch the history channel, they always repeat and it was on just a while ago). they basicly supposed to blow stuff up (i dont remember what/where) but the leader turned himself and his men in. if they didnt they could of taken out a big target. we did have better odds, but look what the germans accomplished. them conquering the us seemed impossible, but so does half the other stuff the did. even a couple joke victories would of been terrible for morale.

    they point was if we know of even the intent with any real chance we should do something about. sometimes for lives, other times just for moral. but now people or to scared to think about actually taking a stance againt stuff like this.

  10. #55
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    ingall, you failed to refer to the War of 1812

  11. #56
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    Do you really think Hitler could have conquered the United States? How? There is a good chance Hitler would still have been defeated at Stalingrad and Kursk without America entering the war.
    Hindsight is 20:20. Besides, even if the Allies won, what could America say about its role in letting this happen?

    Well, actually, it the 14th Amendment destroyed the sovereignty of the states by giving the federal government power to regulate all aspects of a state's society that had the slightest connection to minority rights.
    nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
    This gives the Federal government power to ensure that states follow due process of law. This could be seen as federal interference of states' rights. It was used to support Roe v. Wade, among many other cases. But knowing all that I know, my opinion is that this amendment is a very beneficial one. States don't have the right to ignore laws, federal or state, when they become inconvienent.

    one thing im am little confussed about is how the democrats what to fix the economy. so taxing the guy that makes a little more than minimum wage so he makes the same if not less that the minimum wager will help people? giving the guy a hard time to pay bills\, like rent is helpful. they guy will be evicted, the landlord wont fill his spot, he will raise rent and it will keep repeating.
    Please shut up. You're not even making sense here. You're just imagining the worst case scenario based on your perception of the Democratic attack on the working class

    republican style, bost companies, hopefull give more jobs or raises(then they will blow more money, hopefull american.). it might not do wonders, but its a start. we have money to blow on other countries, we should have tons to invest in our companies.
    Countries are more important than companies.
    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.
    It doesn't give us the right. But just because the second amendment doesn't give us this right, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Congress (or any state) may make laws which allow any kind of weaponry.

    And the fact they can be so partisan during a time in which our troops are on foreign soil makes me sick
    Everyone supports the troops. Why should it matter if politicans argue about tax cuts and judicial nominations? Politicians are supposed to do that stuff.

    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:
    Excuse my editorial laugh... hehehe...

    Why were you a Democrat in the first place?

    im still waiting for OSR to tell me why we "must" grow tabacco when no one here does....
    My best guess is for crop rotation reasons... the soil needs to be replenished.

  12. #57
    ingall
    Guest
    ingall, you failed to refer to the War of 1812
    And your point...?

  13. #58
    ingall
    Guest
    Hindsight is 20:20. Besides, even if the Allies won, what could America say about its role in letting this happen?
    Foreign policy shouldn't be based on the fear of looking bad.

    This gives the Federal government power to ensure that states follow due process of law. This could be seen as federal interference of states' rights. It was used to support Roe v. Wade, among many other cases. But knowing all that I know, my opinion is that this amendment is a very beneficial one. States don't have the right to ignore laws, federal or state, when they become inconvienent.
    States should ignore many federal laws, since many of them are unconstitutional, and can only be justified with a perverted reading of the elastic clause and the commerce clause. And the fourteenth amendment, at least according to current judicial thought, gives the federal government far more power than merely ensuring that states follow due process of law. In Anglo-American legal tradition, due process of law is applied to individuals, not to groups, and relates to the judicial process, not the legislative. How can a federal judge ordering a state to raise several hundred million dollars to outfit public schools with Olympic pools, etc be viewed as enforcing due process of law?

  14. #59
    Unregd
    Guest
    Originally posted by ingall
    States should ignore many federal laws, since many of them are unconstitutional, and can only be justified with a perverted reading of the elastic clause and the commerce clause.
    Are you referring to the defunct theory of nullification? Wasn't that the same line of thinking that led the Southern states to secede from the United States and thus start the Civil War? Are you honestly saying that the government would have been better off if the Confederacy had won the war to protect states' rights to deny basic human rights to many of their citizens based on race? Do you think America would be better if the federal government were extremely weak and unable even to make its member states obey the Bill of Rights? Would you really like to live as a slave or poor tenant farmer (most white Southerners were not wealthy plantation owners) always in debt to the local landowner without even suffrage or a way to escape your condition?

    If states' sovereignty is violated when the federal government forces states to give basic constitutional rights to all its citizens, I am perfectly fine with violating states' sovereignty.

  15. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    367
    Libertarianism 4-ever!

Page 4 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