Hard nosed, intelligent, political discussion

#276
#276
Volunteer- I like to consider myself to be right down the middle on most things - a purple stater if you will. While I would not consider myself to be a "religious" person- I do belive in God and Familty and hold many of the values that you state close to my heart. However, I do feel that when electing an official to represent the millions of people that make up this country that it is more important - to me at least - that the person being elected is a wordly educated, understanding and smart individual.

I would agree with the need for smaller gov't, less handouts and more accountability - it all has to start somewhere. Would you say that since W has taken office that the government has done these things?? I would have to say no.

To answer you question on that article - that is a load of horse manure and I don't think that is makes a fair representation of the Democratic party. It is very similar to your statement before - when you asked for sources that people read. Personally, and like smokedog, I try not to limit what I read to any particular side - I read the boortz report, watch fox news - but I also listen to cnn and watch chris matthews - from these I like to draw my own conclusion - seeing all sides not just one.

Anyway - to answer your question - while we need to take a long hard look at the structure of our country - I don't think that socialism is the way - nor do i think that it is a widely accepted view or is a general representation of the Dem. party.
 
#277
#277
I would like to consider myself a Constitutionalist, therefore I vote Republican since they are the only major party who seems to at least still show some reverence to the principles this country was founded on.

I believe the government is there to provide infrastructure, education, and security, and that is it. I believe that men and women, black and white, should earn the same pay for the same job, yet, I do not believe the only thing the government should mandate is full disclosure of company wagers. Let the consumers decide if they still want to purchase from a sexist or rascist company.

I believe that the right to bear arms should be completely uninfringed, just as the wording of the Second Amendment states. I believe that crime would actually drop if most American citizens were armed.

I also believe that moral questions concerning drugs and alcohol should be answered by parents, not by the state. We spend billions each year fighting the 'drug war,' and for what reason? Most ODs are the results of the impurities dealers use to cut the narcotics they are selling. Also, most of instability in South America over the past 20 years has been the result of drug lords fighting government and/or other drug lords. If America legalized, and taxed, narcotics, then land used to produce drugs would be bought out by American corporations. The revenue earned off drug taxes coupled with the extra money the government would have from ending the 'drug war' could be used towards halfway houses and drug education.
 
#278
#278
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texan touched by a lobbying scandal that ensnared some of his former top aides and cost the Republican his leadership post, won't seek re-election to Congress and intends to resign, Republican officials said Monday.
Click to expand...

:wavey:
 
#279
#279
Wait, what did Delay get into trouble for??? Oh yes, for going outside the confines of the McCain-Feingold Act, also known as the most unconstitutional act of legislation ever passed. The merits of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act will definitely be tested in the next elections and hopefully will be argued again in front of the Supreme Court. This time though, it will most definitely be shot down.
 
#280
#280
The "hammer" is gone and the world seems just a bit better today yeah!
:dance2: :dance2: :dance2:
 
#281
#281
(therealUT @ Apr 4 said:
Wait, what did Delay get into trouble for??? Oh yes, for going outside the confines of the McCain-Feingold Act, also known as the most unconstitutional act of legislation ever passed.
Click to expand...

Agreed . . . It was a reactionary feel good piece of legislation.
 
#282
#282
McCain showed just how gracious of a loser he was in the 2000 Primaries and along with Feingold, the defender of the Constitution that she is, drew up a bill that limited the power of political speech for all Americans.

I have respect for McCain for serving his country and living through hell for several years, however, that is not an automatic qualification to the U.S. Senate.
 
#283
#283
It's one of those things that seems like a good idea for about 10 seconds until you consider the ramifications. John McCain and Russ Feingold had to know that this would be challenged over and over again when they wrote the bill.
 
#284
#284
They also knew it would ultimately be decided by the courts. Unfortunately, there are some topics in this country that voting against the norm on is political suicide:

Limiting contributions to political campaigns
Torture
Decreasing the education budget
Etc.
 
#285
#285
Throw in Social Security. Whever a politician mentions it the AARP attacks with their shuffleboard sticks.
 
#289
#289
It only took 288 posts.

I like to read National Review Online, the Drudge Report, Reuters, BBC, and listen to a healthy dose of Boortz everyday.
 
#290
#290
I used to read Drudge Report every day, but yesterday the main story was something about Katie Couric and her new move to her new show, when the main headline should have been about the Homeland Security pedophile who got caught.

News anymore should just be called "News Entertainment", because it is nothing more than crap entertainment.
 
#292
#292
Alright OrangeE, I hit the links you provided and ended up on a liberal message board, registered and started posting.

I've seen it on this thread and it was prevalent on the board I visited "Do whatever, say whatever, accuse whatever it takes to ruin the current administration"

The following questions arise....is the only agenda liberals have to offer is a promise of a better administration? If that's the case then how come I never hear of specific examples of how that would happen or a plan set in place? What really IS the liberal agenda?

Mind you, don't separate liberal from democrat, to embrace one is to embrace the other.

By the way, from the get go on the board I visited, once the posters realized I was not one of their own, the attacks came quickly. Name calling, right wing nut, I even got called a pedophile because one poster stated that the conservative's authoritative profile fit the same mold as pedophiles....wow.
 
#293
#293
Looking for a liberal agenda, Volunteer...

Good luck, the Democrats have been looking for an Agenda since about 1998.
 
#294
#294
I have always suspected as much, but after looking on their site, I am now convinced that I am a Libertarian.

Socially liberal and economically conservative. The problem is, there is never a viable candidate that reflects these views.

 
#295
#295
(vader @ Apr 6 said:
I have always suspected as much, but after looking on their site, I am now convinced that I am a Libertarian.

Socially liberal and economically conservative. The problem is, there is never a viable candidate that reflects these views.
Click to expand...

Easiest way to solve this problem Vader. Elect Republicans at the federal level and democrats and/or libertarians at the local level. Basically, the Supreme Court that is sitting right now is very Constitutionally minded, they believe in less federal power and more local power. If they are able to rule on enough cases, then they will slowly be able to once again empower states, who in turn, should empower county and city governments.
 
#296
#296
Good luck, the Democrats have been looking for an Agenda since about 1998.
Click to expand...

One could also argue that Democrats have not had an agenda since 1994.

I love the issue of States Rights.

TherealUT do you like to debate over the political struggles with States Rights that led to the Civil War?

What do you think, about 1810 forward to 1860?
 
#297
#297
States Rights Discussion:

Before 1865:

Before the institution of the United States Constitution, the Articles of Confederation created a government composed purely of a collection of states cooperating together, with no overruling or Federal Government. However, the Constitution implemented the Federal Government to rule over the nation as a whole, and yet these two spheres of government did not cross. Neither the State nor the Federal Government was a higher authority, they simply ruled in different arenas. The problem was what happens if they do conflict.

When the Federalist party passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that gave the classic statement of states' rights. The Union is a voluntary association of states and if the central government goes too far, each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions:

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions became the bedrock principles of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. Those supporters, such as John Randolph, who insisted loudest on states' rights, were called "Old republicans" into the 1820s and 1830s. The Jeffersonian principles were often cited by secessionists on the debates that led to the Civil War.

Slave supporters often argued that one of the rights of the states was the protection of slave property wherever it went, a position endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1857 Dred Scott decision.

States Rights after 1865:

The Civil War itself and its Constitutional amendments revolved around whether America would become an indestructible union, or a collection of states under a Federal Government. By the beginning of the 20th Century, greater cooperation began to grow between the State and Federal Governments, and soon the Federal Government began to gain more power. It was early in this development that the National Income Tax was implemented. Before this, the State had been the highest form of government to which people had to pay taxes, but now another level was added, creating a sense of higher authority for the Federal Government. Soon following this implementation was the Great Depression and then World War II, during which time the Federal Government continued to take on more authority. Following World War II, during the Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, there was a great increase of Federal regulations and power. However, since his Presidency, there has been great debate about the amount of power the Federal Government should have, as Americans have become much more cautious about these Federal regulations. States' rights are also defined in the body of the constitution itself.

Links:
NY Times
NY Times
LA Times
Washington Post
Theocracy Watch
Thought Experiment
The Nader Page
States Liberty Party
Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
People for the American Way
Know your rights
TheNation
Privacilla
ACLU
Slate the New Federalists

outrage.jpg
 
#298
#298
The argument concerning States Rights was the major cause of the Civil War, as many people who argue that slavery wasn't the the cause. However, the States Rights argument at the time centered around slavery.

An interesting trend had began to emerge circa 1825, and that was many large plantation owners were increasingly freeing more and more of their slaves. This most likely has less to do with their warm heartedness than it has to do with the widespread use of the cotton gin (invented 1793.)

However, with Kansas-Nebraska act, making all new territories free states, many in the South felt that their right to own slaves was being infringed upon (not quite sure how they made that jump.) When Lincoln was elected, South Carolina jumped the gun and seceded. However, just as embassies and military installations around the globe today are U.S. Federal property, so was the case back in 1861, and Federal Troops were sent to secure Ft. Sumter. South Carolina militia troops were manning the guns and fired on the Federal Troops, inciting what we know today as the Civil War.

SC had every right to secede, for whatever reason they desired. However, the Federal Government had every right to secure their military installation. SC was not an enemy until they fired the cannon on the Federal troops.

That being said though, the Union had to win and in doing so the concept of Federal power being stronger than States Rights was conceived.

The Union had to win, because a split continent would eventually lead to the British conquering the South, and then conquering the North.

However, if SC would have had the foresight to see that Lincoln was not going to abolish slavery (he still didn't until he felt the Union had nothing to fight for, and it became a rallying cry for his troops,) and that slavery was needed less and less as technology advanced.

I do not want anyone to take me for a bigot from reading that comment. I am operating off of a historical assumption that basically states that for most African Americans quality of life was better for fifty years prior to emancipation than for 50 years after.
 
#299
#299
South Carolina was always in the mix, during the presidential term of Andrew Jackson, South Carolina had its own semi-seccession movement due the "Tariffs of Abomination" which threatened both South Carolina's economy and the Union.

Andrew Jackson also threatened to send Federal Troops to put down the movement and to hang the leader of the secessionists from the highest tree in South Carolina. Also due to this, Jackson's vice president, John C Calhoun, who supported the movement and wrote the essay "The South Carolina Exposition And Protest", became the first US vice-president to resign.

*Free trivia on Andrew Jackson, during Jackson's Administration, the U.S Government was, for the first and (as of 2006) only time, debt free.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top