PDA

View Full Version : whats your party?



Pages : [1] 2

mart_man00
04-29-2003, 08:24 PM
whats your politcal party?

alpha
04-29-2003, 09:10 PM
I have yet to decide. I'm moderate, just don't really know towards which side i lean towards more.

Perspective
04-29-2003, 09:12 PM
i dont like any of them, we should all just live like monkeys

CheesyMoo
04-29-2003, 09:19 PM
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.

alpha
04-29-2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by CheesyMoo
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. same here, but a lot of voters go along party lines. some voters do 'clothespin votes', others look at the candidates and their ideology, others vote party lines. just the way it is, and probably won't change.

Scourfish
04-29-2003, 10:11 PM
I usually go to the Fiesta Politico on free Margarita night.

Shiro
04-30-2003, 02:42 AM
Here in the Netherlands people vote for a political party. I usually vote for the social-democrats or socialists. Social-democrats and christian-democrats won last elections, also the socialists had a good part.

mart_man00
04-30-2003, 05:24 AM
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. thats how its supposed to go, but i never works. but there always seems to be one party you agree with more.

Unregd
04-30-2003, 02:40 PM
The thing about campaigns is that candidates don't really intend to/can't keep their promises. A Democratic candidate might try to appeal to the rural vote by showing that they don't hate guns, and a Republican candidate might try to show suburban voters that they're not bent on turning the United States into a "new Jerusalem." When it comes down to voting on actual legislation, the representatives will be made to feel the "benefits" (compromising on legislation with other party members, wanting to get some of the party's campaign funding money, possible inexperience or unfamiliarity with the issue, etc.) of voting with the rest of the party.

In short, I'll look at what the candidate says and promises, but I'll also consider the general ideology and positions held by the candidate's party. I'm independent, but I'd be much more likely to vote for a Democrat than for a Republican, and I wouldn't mind voting for a third party, like the Green Party, on minor elected offices and races that aren't close. If the Democratic Party fails to find a decent presidential candidate for 2004, I might vote for a third party out of disgust.

RoD
04-30-2003, 02:42 PM
i dont even know what the differences are.

alpha
04-30-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by RoD
i dont even know what the differences are. you shall do some research then,.

RoD
04-30-2003, 02:56 PM
if i honestly cared enough i might heh

mart_man00
04-30-2003, 03:01 PM
In short, I'll look at what the candidate says and promises, but I'll also consider the general ideology and positions held by the candidate's party. I'm independent, but I'd be much more likely to vote for a Democrat than for a Republican, and I wouldn't mind voting for a third party, like the Green Party, on minor elected offices and races that aren't close.
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.

mart_man00
04-30-2003, 03:03 PM
i dont even know what the differences are. thats part of the probelm too. how many voters say this but still demand their right to vote.

golfinguy4
04-30-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by mart_man00
thats part of the probelm too. how many voters say this but still demand their right to vote.

All, and they should as well.


Personally, I tend to lean democratic because they are more for the good of the people (all the people).

On the other hand, the Republicans tend to be more for the individual and having one make their own way in life.

OneStiffRod
04-30-2003, 03:54 PM
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.

RoD
04-30-2003, 04:57 PM
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

mart_man00
04-30-2003, 05:16 PM
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!)

whistlenm1
04-30-2003, 05:39 PM
...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!

:confused:

Hillbillie
04-30-2003, 05:42 PM
No party affiliation here. But my philosophy is live and let live.

Silvercord
04-30-2003, 06:04 PM
I'm of the Baath (sp?) party.

golfinguy4
04-30-2003, 07:10 PM
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.

samsam1
04-30-2003, 07:56 PM
Toga,

they , re all uniformed

mart_man00
04-30-2003, 07:58 PM
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.

CoderBob
04-30-2003, 08:07 PM
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.

ingall
04-30-2003, 08:21 PM
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. This hasn't worked out so hot.

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?

golfinguy4
04-30-2003, 10:10 PM
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.

ingall
04-30-2003, 11:27 PM
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.

nvoigt
05-01-2003, 02:34 AM
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.

golfinguy4
05-01-2003, 12:54 PM
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) :rolleyes:

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?

Unregd
05-01-2003, 04:25 PM
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.

Clyde
05-01-2003, 04:29 PM
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.

ingall
05-01-2003, 04:44 PM
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.

mart_man00
05-01-2003, 05:39 PM
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

ingall
05-01-2003, 08:55 PM
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...

mart_man00
05-01-2003, 09:25 PM
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.

ingall
05-01-2003, 11:15 PM
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.

WHurricane16
05-02-2003, 06:12 AM
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.

Clyde
05-02-2003, 06:41 AM
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.

RoD
05-02-2003, 08:34 AM
im still waiting for OSR to tell me why we "must" grow tabacco when no one here does....

mart_man00
05-02-2003, 11:09 AM
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.

RoD
05-02-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by mart_man00
i live in hillbilly country and it not done here either.

me too, must be a city thing :D :D

golfinguy4
05-02-2003, 12:54 PM
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.

RoD
05-02-2003, 02:16 PM
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.

Unregd
05-02-2003, 02:55 PM
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."

mart_man00
05-02-2003, 03:13 PM
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 :D ) 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.

RoD
05-02-2003, 03:38 PM
the biggest prob with the constitution i think is the many ways it can be interpreted

golfinguy4
05-02-2003, 03:40 PM
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?

ingall
05-02-2003, 05:14 PM
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.

mart_man00
05-02-2003, 05:31 PM
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.