whats your politcal party?
Printable View
whats your politcal party?
I have yet to decide. I'm moderate, just don't really know towards which side i lean towards more.
i dont like any of them, we should all just live like monkeys
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.Quote:
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.
I usually go to the Fiesta Politico on free Margarita night.
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.
thats how its supposed to go, but i never works. but there always seems to be one party you agree with more.Quote:
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.
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.
i dont even know what the differences are.
you shall do some research then,.Quote:
Originally posted by RoD
i dont even know what the differences are.
if i honestly cared enough i might heh
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?Quote:
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.
maybe a real discussion here would work out.
thats part of the probelm too. how many voters say this but still demand their right to vote.Quote:
i dont even know what the differences are.
All, and they should as well.Quote:
Originally posted by mart_man00
thats part of the probelm too. how many voters say this but still demand their right to vote.
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.
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.
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 :PQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
All, and they should as well.
rewritting the constitutions is better for the people? more joke laws but less enforcement is better? light sentences for hard crimes?Quote:
Personally, I tend to lean democratic because they are more for the good of the people (all the people).
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!)
...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:
No party affiliation here. But my philosophy is live and let live.
I'm of the Baath (sp?) party.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by mart_man00
rewritting the constitutions is better for the people?
Toga,
they , re all uniformed
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.Quote:
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.
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 think he meant rewriting the constitution through use of the supreme court.Quote:
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.
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?
Amendment 14: (quote the government, nevermore)
Wow, that part is so horrible.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Wow, that part is so horrible.
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.Quote:
Amendment 15:
I fail to see how this one is bad.
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.Quote:
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).
If you would like any clarification, I will only be too glad to try to educate you, vain task though it may be.
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.
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?
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:Quote:
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.
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.
*laughs hysterically*Quote:
rewritting the constitutions is better for the people?
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.Quote:
i hate there gun control
I would try to list the damage, but it seems rather useless, since "no matter what [I] say," you will still disagree.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
2) Yes, please forgive me for my complete lack of intelligence (i.e. not agreeing with you)
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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...Quote:
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
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.
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.Quote:
the correlation was that you cant just wait and see for everything.
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:Quote:
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.
- 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.
Wow, the more i read about these Democrats of yours the more i like them.Quote:
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."
Man it just gets better and better.Quote:
But if the Pledge is unconstitutional because it mentions God...
Seriously though, from what i can see Democrats = Good and Repulicans = Evil, surely it can't be that simple?
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
im still waiting for OSR to tell me why we "must" grow tabacco when no one here does....
me too, must be a city thing :D :DQuote:
Originally posted by mart_man00
i live in hillbilly country and it not done here either.
Ohh, enlighten me. Please do.Quote:
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.
Why thank you.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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 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."
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.
the biggest prob with the constitution i think is the many ways it can be interpreted
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Ohh, enlighten me. Please do.
Case in point. You fail to show how your comments make any sense, and instead lapse into pseudo-cutting sarcasm.Quote:
Why thank you.
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.Quote:
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.
yup...that helped to screw thing up.Quote:
the biggest prob with the constitution i think is the many ways it can be interpreted
i only really had one teacher that even mentioned it, but i think he came up with the best way to fix, another revolution.
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.
Yes, destroyed sovereignty of states by forcing them to make citiznes of the minorities.Quote:
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.
Source please?Quote:
Originally posted by ingall
Debatable, but is contrary to the opinions of most historians, though it may be true.
Yes, cause it would have been much better to wait for Hitler to come to America instead to nab him before he got here.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Source please?
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.Quote:
Yes, destroyed sovereignty of states by forcing them to make citiznes of the minorities.
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.Quote:
Yes, cause it would have been much better to wait for Hitler to come to America instead to nab him before he got here.
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.
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.Quote:
Do you really think Hitler could have conquered the United States? How?
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.
ingall, you failed to refer to the War of 1812
Hindsight is 20:20. Besides, even if the Allies won, what could America say about its role in letting this happen?Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
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 classQuote:
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.
Countries are more important than companies.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Everyone supports the troops. Why should it matter if politicans argue about tax cuts and judicial nominations? Politicians are supposed to do that stuff.Quote:
And the fact they can be so partisan during a time in which our troops are on foreign soil makes me sick
Excuse my editorial laugh... hehehe...Quote:
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:
Why were you a Democrat in the first place?
My best guess is for crop rotation reasons... the soil needs to be replenished.Quote:
im still waiting for OSR to tell me why we "must" grow tabacco when no one here does....
And your point...?Quote:
ingall, you failed to refer to the War of 1812
Foreign policy shouldn't be based on the fear of looking bad.Quote:
Hindsight is 20:20. Besides, even if the Allies won, what could America say about its role in letting this happen?
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?Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.
Libertarianism 4-ever!
You tried to prove how we can have a small army and still be fine. Also, you tried to say that we still could have won the Revolutionary War if the British truly cared and if the French never helped us.Quote:
Originally posted by ingall
And your point...?
I don't really get to active on political affairs. Nobody sees things like I do in office. I know there is a lot of corruption, and even the people you think are completely honest may be in office only for self-gain. I know people are going to disagree and tell me I'm wrong, and I don't care.
1. I am a Republican
2. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Don't want a baby? Learn some self-confrol, don't have sex. Abortion is the most extreme act of cowardice imaginable.
3. Under Hitler, look what happened to the Jews, who had no guns. Under Pol Pot, look what happened to the Cambodians, who had no guns. This is what our founding fathers were trying to protect us against with the 2nd amendment. I will fight for that amendment as long as I live. Remember, it takes a person to pull a trigger.
4. I love America, and it angers me to hear people say that we should have the right to burn the American flag. It stuns me to see our own pledge of alliegance banned in 8 states. What kind of country bans its own pledge? Mine, I'm sorry to say.
5. Illegal immigrants need to have their asses tracked down and kicked outta this country
* waiting for heated criticism *
>>2. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Don't want a baby? Learn some self-confrol, don't have sex. Abortion is the most extreme act of cowardice imaginable.
I disagree. Its not always about self control and taking the right steps because $$$$ happens. Sometimes it is worse for the child to have to live. What if the father is abusive and the mom is too scared to give it up? Then the child grows up in poverty and abuse to be a crack dealer. The child has to suffer for the idiot parents? $$$$ that.
"1. I am a Republican"
See this stuff just makes me think that Republicans are either A: Stupid, or B: Evil.
"2. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Don't want a baby? Learn some self-confrol, don't have sex. Abortion is the most extreme act of cowardice imaginable."
People who think abortion is murder need to learn some basic biology, no not even that, basic common sense and a touch of reasoning will do.
"3. Under Hitler, look what happened to the Jews, who had no guns. Under Pol Pot, look what happened to the Cambodians, who had no guns. This is what our founding fathers were trying to protect us against with the 2nd amendment. I will fight for that amendment as long as I live. Remember, it takes a person to pull a trigger."
What a load of cods-wallop.
"5. Illegal immigrants need to have their asses tracked down and kicked outta this country"
Immigration from 3rd world countries can cause economic and social problems to the West, its an issue that has to be treated delicately, we are talking about people many of whom have had horrible horrible lives because they live in countries with a whole host of problems, and guess what the West is to blame for much of them.
"* waiting for heated criticism *"
You got it :)
Abortion in an abstract way is murder, yes, but in a direct sense of the term murder it is not. In no means does the direct interpretation of the word murder apply to abortion when done in the proper manner.
Abortion isn't murder because a foetus is not a person, its a collection of cells.
Valid arguments can be made about SPECIFIC dates for example:
After X no. of weeks, a foetus shows a developed nervous system which indicates a high degree of awareness, via blah blah blah, therefore I believe that it is immoral to terminate a foetus after X no. of weeks.
The idea that many pro-life nuts have that a week after fertilisation a ball of 100 cells not much larger than a pin head is in fact a human being is laughable.
What I love is that many of these pro-life nuts have no problem with hunting! They won't kill an unconcious collection of cells that is in essence no different to the skin cells you shed when you take your tea-shirt off, but killing a concious intelligent animal just for kicks, that fine..... riiiiiight.
finally, some one i agree with.Quote:
1. I am a Republican
2. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Don't want a baby? Learn some self-confrol, don't have sex. Abortion is the most extreme act of cowardice imaginable.
3. Under Hitler, look what happened to the Jews, who had no guns. Under Pol Pot, look what happened to the Cambodians, who had no guns. This is what our founding fathers were trying to protect us against with the 2nd amendment. I will fight for that amendment as long as I live. Remember, it takes a person to pull a trigger.
4. I love America, and it angers me to hear people say that we should have the right to burn the American flag. It stuns me to see our own pledge of alliegance banned in 8 states. What kind of country bans its own pledge? Mine, I'm sorry to say.
5. Illegal immigrants need to have their asses tracked down and kicked outta this country
* waiting for heated criticism *
>>Abortion isn't murder because a foetus is not a person, its a collection of cells.
Cells which are alive. Now dont get me wrong i am 100% pro choice, but when something is on a track to be living, or is alive in this case, it is murder to remove its life. For example, if you take a regular cell, say the ameoba(sp?) and destroy it, you murderd it. Cells are alive, but i dont consider that murder. What i mean by in a way it is murder is that you are stopping a process bound to end in life.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
we are talking about people many of whom have had horrible horrible lives because they live in countries with a whole host of problems, and guess what the West is to blame for much of them.
> Abortion is the most extreme act of cowardice imaginable.
What about rape? Incest? In a case when the mother and fetus will both die if it's seen through?
> Under Hitler, look what happened to the Jews, who had no guns.
I love this argument - it makes me giggle. If the Jews had had guns, they would have easily dispatched THE GERMAN FSCKING ARMY. No difficulty at all there.
> it angers me to hear people say that we should have the right to burn the American flag.
Why shouldn't we? It's a very powerful form of protest. And if you pull out "because so many have fought and died for it", you're exactly the kind of person those protests target. Sure, there are some that burn it to raeg agenst teh masheen!!!1, but there are plenty of people who feel things that this country does are disgraceful to the very people that did fight and die for the flag. They fought and died so people would have that right.
> t stuns me to see our own pledge of alliegance banned in 8 states.
Well, if that whole "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" had been paid attention to, we wouldn't have that sort of problem, would we? Some people don't believe we're a nation "under God". Whoever originally wrote the pledge obviously didn't, or he at least felt like following the first line of the Bill of Rights; the original version of the pledge didn't have that in it. For something that's in such an obvious spot, the establishment clause sure is ignored a lot.
I didn't want to get into an argument, but I can't just let this one go:
If you said that to just about any war veteran in this country, they would probably turn red in the face with anger. If you don't like the way this country is being run, you can change it with your VOTE. Burning an American flag is not just an insult to American government, it is an insult to America and Americans. It is an insult to the very country which gives you any rights at all. Veterans did not fight in war so that their own countrymen could spit on their country by burning a flag.Quote:
Why shouldn't we? It's a very powerful form of protest. And if you pull out "because so many have fought and died for it", you're exactly the kind of person those protests target. Sure, there are some that burn it to raeg agenst teh masheen!!!1, but there are plenty of people who feel things that this country does are disgraceful to the very people that did fight and die for the flag. They fought and died so people would have that right.
All pro-abortionists pull out the "What about rape?" question when they have no other defense for the killing of an innocent baby. So, what about rape? Yes it's a horrible thing, and nobody asks to be raped. Which is worse, a poor woman having a harder time in life because she has a child(which she could put up for adoption), or an innocent baby being killed simply because it isn't wanted? All people deserve a chance at life, no matter what their mother thinks. Everybody tries to justify it by saying that a fetus is not really a human being. If you take an arbitrary cell and you put it into a womans womb, what would happen? Nothing. If you took an egg that was has been fertilized just one second ago and put it in a womans womb, what would happen? A human being would develop. So clearly there is a direct connection between the fertilization of an egg and human life. Saying that a fetus is not a human being is just a lame excuse.
I never said the Jews could have defeated the German army. At least they would have had a chance to defend themselves though. What's so funny about it? If just half of the Jews had firearms, do you really think so many of them would have been tortured and killed in the concentration camps?
Which law are you talking about here? See what I'm saying? You get ideas and then you get carried away with them without using any logical thought. Congress never made a law saying that "all must say the pledge or they will be punished."Quote:
Well, if that whole "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" had been paid attention to, we wouldn't have that sort of problem, would we?
I am saying that it is wrong to prevent school children from saying the pledge simply because it contains a reference to God. If you don't like that part, skip it. The fact is that the vast majority of this country believes in God, including our founding fathers. If you don't like it, don't say it. But don't keep the rest of us from saying it as well.
It is my opinion that anybody who is proud of their country would say the pledge(maybe without the God part) gladly.
> Which law are you talking about here?
How do you think "Under God" got into the pledge in the first place?
> It is my opinion that anybody who is proud of their country would say the pledge(maybe without the God part) gladly.
That's true - I do say it (well, I haven't said it in years, but I would if I were ever asked to), but I omit that part. That's fine. But that's just me. Omitting that line draws unnecessary attention and scrutiny to someone just for their religious beliefs. It implies most non-Christian people aren't welcome. Atheists? No. Hindis? No. (gasp) Muslims? No. Our nation is under "God", not Allah, Shiva, or anything or anyone else.
> pro-abortionists
Pro-choice. There's a bit of a difference.
> human being would develop.
You sound pretty sure about that...
> do you really think so many of them would have been tortured and killed in the concentration camps?
Probably. The Jews weren't in possession of many tanks, AFAIK. And the ones who really felt able and willing to fight did. That's what's called a resistance.
what the .......... is that. every time, its always americas fault. were the only ones that every get off our a$$es! wow, we helped get countries independance. we helped get rif of tyrants. we gave out $hit loads of money, we never even think if they disserve it or not (cause of the people). if we didnt get involved we would get b*tched at, if we do get involved its imperialism.Quote:
and guess what the West is to blame for much of them.
i hope theres a draft, this country needs some balls, badly.
lol...how the hell is that an answer to the question "Which law are you talking about?". The first amendment prevents the government from stealing your religion, so to speak. It does not say that there is no God. As I said before, the founding fathers believed in God and attributed our success as a nation, along with the well-being of all things, to God. That was their belief and that was the belief of pretty much the entire nation at that time. That is still the majority opinion today. If you don't agree with that, you won't be punished(that's where the first amendment comes in), but you will just have to live with the fact that for years this country has attributed it's success and it's wellbeing at least partly to God.Quote:
How do you think "Under God" got into the pledge in the first place?
What's the difference? You're just trying to make it sound better. Do you really believe that a woman and a woman alone has the right to decide whether a baby lives or dies? There are certain rights that a person just does not have, in this or any other country.Quote:
Pro-choice. There's a bit of a difference.
Yeah, I do know what a resistance is. It was a crumby resistance, and do you know why? Largely because the Jews weren't allowed to have firearms. Maybe most of them still would have died(I'm not saying that's true). But at least they could have fought for their lives instead of just taking it from Hitler. Basically what I am saying is that firearms are the best defense we as a society have against tyranny. While tyranny may not be an apparent problem now, you canot know that it will never be one in the future, even in this country.Quote:
Probably. The Jews weren't in possession of many tanks, AFAIK. And the ones who really felt able and willing to fight did. That's what's called a resistance.
In Bangladesh the two main political party:
Bangladesh Awami League(1973, 1996Jun):
Last time in power 1996-2001. Compared with the BNP, it's a very old party. It came in power after immediate independence and win in two National Parliament election.
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)(1979, 1991, 1996 Feb, 2001):
Now in power, with two third majority in parliament, strongest and biggest victory in BD election history. They win in five National Parliament election.
Most popular elections: 1990, 1996 Jun, 2001
Unpopular elections: 1988, 1996 Feb
Ref: Bangladesh Election Commission, BAL, BNP
Me??? not ready to disclose here.. :) actually not that specific to party but the person.
Of course we mention rape! Its a very valid argument. The adoption agencies and such are already over crowded and you want to add to these problems because some $$$$$$$ stuck his dick where it didnt belong and u took away her choice of having a child?? Thats ludacris dude.Quote:
All pro-abortionists pull out the "What about rape?" question when they have no other defense for the killing of an innocent baby. So, what about rape? Yes it's a horrible thing, and nobody asks to be raped. Which is worse, a poor woman having a harder time in life because she has a child(which she could put up for adoption), or an innocent baby being killed simply because it isn't wanted? All people deserve a chance at life, no matter what their mother thinks. Everybody tries to justify it by saying that a fetus is not really a human being. If you take an arbitrary cell and you put it into a womans womb, what would happen? Nothing. If you took an egg that was has been fertilized just one second ago and put it in a womans womb, what would happen? A human being would develop. So clearly there is a direct connection between the fertilization of an egg and human life. Saying that a fetus is not a human being is just a lame excuse.
You sound very certain a human would develop. Ok lets say it does, but has mental problems. So now you have a mentally disabled orphan in an over crowded adoption system in poor conditions and having a lack of attention leading to more complications. Yea thats a great $$$$ing idea, lets veto abortion right now!!!
Yes a fetus is a human. So $$$$ing what? In non consensual situations the female has the right to say what happens to her body. That fetus is part of her body ie her property, who the hell are you to make her have this child???
What if pregnancy poses a health risk? So she has to risk death because she was raped??? Thats totally lame man.
Theres a huge difference. You can be for abortion or the right of choice. Maybe i dont believe in the abortion process, but i believe that woman has the right to chose.Quote:
What's the difference? You're just trying to make it sound better.
100%. Her body is her property, PERIOD dude, PERIOD.Quote:
Do you really believe that a woman and a woman alone has the right to decide whether a baby lives or dies?
No, they would have been shot, maimed, burned alive and the survivors would have been tortured and killed in concentration camps. They did it in the resistance of the Warsaw Ghetto. Sadly, your argument has already been proven wrong by history.Quote:
I never said the Jews could have defeated the German army. At least they would have had a chance to defend themselves though. What's so funny about it? If just half of the Jews had firearms, do you really think so many of them would have been tortured and killed in the concentration camps?
" Everybody tries to justify it by saying that a fetus is not really a human being. "
It's not.
"If you take an arbitrary cell and you put it into a womans womb, what would happen? Nothing."
Right...... and?
"If you took an egg that was has been fertilized just one second ago and put it in a womans womb, what would happen? A human being would develop."
Assuming for the moment that all the zillions of different chemical and physiological changes occur correctly (half the number of pregnancies self-abort) ok.... and the conclusion is....
"So clearly there is a direct connection between the fertilization of an egg and human life."
LOL, who would have guessed?
"Saying that a fetus is not a human being is just a lame excuse."
No, saying a foetus is not a human being is using your brain:
Let me rewite your nonsense into a coherent albeit flawed argument:
'Once an egg is fertilised a human being will be born, by killing the growing ball of cells you are stopping that process hence preventing our human being coming into the world hence killing that human being, hence abortion is murder.'
Its the 'potential' argument, potentially a human being would exist, and preventing that potential being realised is the same as killing the human being..... well of course its utter nonsense because taken to its logical conclusion you, me, everyone in the entire world is a murderer because there are plenty of potential children we could all have had, that we haven't, are we all murderers then?
Nothing magic happens upon fertilisation, chemical changes occur, the child is no less of a potential child than 10 minutes before the parents started having sex.
Prevention of the formation of a human life is NOT THE SAME as killing a human being.
When an abortion is carried out you kill a ball of cells, thats it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and guess what the West is to blame for much of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"what the .......... is that. every time, its always americas fault. were the only ones that every get off our a$$es! wow, we helped get countries independance. we helped get rif of tyrants. we gave out $hit loads of money, we never even think if they disserve it or not (cause of the people). if we didnt get involved we would get b*tched at, if we do get involved its imperialism."
Done any history? Anyone who doesn't think that the 3rd world has been screwed over by the WEST (no, *gasp* not just the US), is ignorant, plain and simple.