You would think you would find 1000's of stories across the country being reported. All this arguing, all this fighting that we all do about 'issues' you think it really matters?
Seems most people are more comfortable keeping their heads in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem. I think one day people will realize that they have been had.
Our constitution, while not perfect went a long way in giving us our freedom. I also think that when we look back at what our founding fathers said many will realize that what they said still applies today. While its true that times have changed, people and what drives them has not.
We have the illusion of choice. Everyone is talking about speeches, and debates. All scripted. Its such a joke anymore that its not even funny.
Our political parties do nothing but divide us. Winners, losers, we all get screwed. Other opinions get shut out of the debate.
I'm thoroughly convinced that we will all keep on arguing petty 'issues' right up until the point that it all falls apart.
The parties really don't matter. We're a system run by a select few who control the power in this country. The government is just a figurehead for big global business and the banks.
I agree. I don't think there is one bit of difference between republican and democrat. They talk about different stuff, but they both do the same. Spend too much, kick the problems down the road, and take away our rights, and tell us how to live.
Its truly sad...this country was founded on great principals, and it will fall from within. All due to the fact that many took for granted what they had, or forgot what it means to be truly free.
Well,. that sounded like a tie at best to me. I don't like stuff that is stuffed down peoples' throats.
As far as the issue of not having free delegates, well, I don't think that any delegates should be freed to vote for anyone other then the person they were elected to vote for. If a candidate exits the race, he (or she) should have the right to either release their delegates to the eventual nominee, or to release them to vote their conscience.
As far as Parties being eliminated, that's not going to happen. The country has gotten too large, and the government is far too huge to ever govern effectively without Parties and partnerships among Party members. My major concern is that we get far too many all or nothing Party line votes. People are punished for going against Party leadership on big issues. That's horrible. People should be free to vote their consciences, in the best interests of their constituents, rather than voting as directed by their leadership.
I don't know what the answer is.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: As far as the issue of not having free delegates, well, I don't think that any delegates should be freed to vote for anyone other then the person they were elected to vote for. If a candidate exits the race, he (or she) should have the right to either release their delegates to the eventual nominee, or to release them to vote their conscience.
I can sort of agree with that. What bothers me is that the state parties decided how they were going to do things. Some did it just like you said. Others had unbound delegates, others awarded some proportionally, and some elected that weren't bound.
Federal law says that all delegates that vote for an office like President cannot be bound in any way. They are free to vote how they choose. The problem is that the RNC can dictate what it does as an organization. They have ignored their OWN rules, changed them when they were beat under there OWN rules, and basically shut out the ability for anyone to question anything they do.
I would rather see it done the way it was. Let people talk, let other opinions be heard, let people hash it out. It should be a group effort. Instead it has been controlled from the start.
I don't disagree about parties. Everyone wants to be on the 'winning' team. Others group together with common beliefs. That is human nature.
The problem is that other options or ideas are shunned, or totally blocked from having a voice. Our debates are a joke. Controlled, scripted, you name it. The media shows you what they want you to see. These guys are protected with scripted questions and rules to prevent mistakes.
The republicans and democrats have made it so a third party cannot even debate an issue. They won't get in the debates, they won't get media coverage, and the will not be able to compete with the big money that it takes to win.
Quote: As far as Parties being eliminated, that's not going to happen. The country has gotten too large, and the government is far too huge to ever govern effectively without Parties and partnerships among Party members. My major concern is that we get far too many all or nothing Party line votes. People are punished for going against Party leadership on big issues. That's horrible. People should be free to vote their consciences, in the best interests of their constituents, rather than voting as directed by their leadership.
I understand what you are saying, but that type of thinking is part of the problem, and a great excuse for nothing ever getting done. I have to ask myself 'what IS getting done?' Well banks got a sweet deal. The military industrial complex is alive and well. Companies are profiting overseas rebuilding what we destroy. Regulation protects big companies. Companies were bailed out. Our money is devalued to pay for it all.
We are well on the path of everything that failed in Europe. Nationalized health-care, welfare, and corporations in bed with the government. Its like we are deciding between socialism, and fascism, or some mixture of both.
The answer IS what we had. A small federal government and states rights. Liberty.
There are tons of issues, many of which have been debated on this board, that do not have a place in the federal government. People will NEVER agree about certain things. They make them issues to control and divide us.
Our federal government should be small...and beholden to US. Instead it controls the states...and now it looks like the people cannot even get the right to voice their disapproval.
Quote: Well,. that sounded like a tie at best to me. I don't like stuff that is stuffed down peoples' throats.
Maybe so but it appears that the shot of the teleprompter suggests that, regardless, the result was already made and written. The vote didn't matter, it was therefore a sham.
You can imagine how the liberals will find this and then juxtapose the "vote" at the RNC with their "voter suppression" laws requiring ID's. (fix the outcome)
I used to be a die hard Republican but lately this crew has gone off the deep end of crazy to join their liberal-minded peers.
It was a sham. This just made it blatantly obvious. Those types of things were reported to have had happened all through the election process. Roberts rules not followed, the 'ayes' have it. Closing down meetings.
It was reported that the buses that were carrying delegates from Virginia, and other states circled the convention like 3 times, and wouldn't let them off the bus. They were planning on challenging these rule changes. These delegates were not the 'dreaded' Ron Paul supporters either. Many delegates didn't like this sort of power play.
We can all sit on our soap-boxes and say we care. These are the people who care...and tried to work within the system to do something about it. They have been effectively shut down. Any one of us who now gets tired of the direction this country is going, or who wants to stand up and make a difference no longer has that ability.
There is so much more than this little bit that it is ridiculous. They had a rule that you had to have a plurality in 5 states to nominate someone from the floor. Ron Paul had that. He actually had that in like 11 states. Rules were changed, duly elected delegates not credentialed, entire delegations removed and replaced with yes men.
And even after all of that Ron Paul had 6 states...what to do? Change the rules on the spot and make it 8 states. All so the people wouldn't see a dissenting view.
Its a total and utter sham...I can tell you they don't have my consent.
The last thing a Party wants is a huge floor fight at the convention. One guy won the primary overwhelmingly. The only other guy who would put up a fight is a guy who won 118 delegates .... 62 of those being non binding caucus delegates. Paul won the fewest delegates of any of the top 4 candidates ..... so why worry about allowing him into some floor fight?
As far as unpledged delegates ..... there were 63 .... not enough to make any difference in any regard.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: so why worry about allowing him into some floor fight?
because he is willing to bring up valid points that both candidates need to consider moving forward and is one of the few politicians who has shown a propensity to stick by his values regardless of the political ramifications?
Quote: so why worry about allowing him into some floor fight?
because he is willing to bring up valid points that both candidates need to consider moving forward and is one of the few politicians who has shown a propensity to stick by his values regardless of the political ramifications?
And he won only a very minute portion of the primary electorate. Where is the cut off? Do we allow Santorum to write his own portion of the platform? Gingrich as well? What a cluster that would be ..... even though the platform is non-binding and largely meaningless.
I suspect that there was a deal with Paul anyway, giving his son Rand a speaking role at the convention in exchange for his own good behavior.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
i agree there should be a cut-off somewhere. i just don't agree that it should change mid-stream. setup the cutoff before the primaries and allow anyone that meets it their floortime
(i agree that the only reason Ron isn't stomping his feet about it is likely that they granted Rand the time. Ron seems to be in the mode of his career of setting up Rand for the future).
Quote: The last thing a Party wants is a huge floor fight at the convention.
You are absolutely right about that, especially with so much on the line this year. That being said however, the way to avoid a floor fight isn't by rigging the outcome of a vote to be held and sending bus loads of delegates on some mad mad mad world type loop de loop looking for the big RNC sign.
They didn't want a floor fight? That's not the issue. They don't want anyone they can't control speaking period.
The issue is simple. By their OWN rules you needed a plurality in 5 states to be nominated from the floor. That is the cut-off. Ron Paul had more than that. He should have been allowed to be nominated...he should have been allowed to speak.
The fact of the matter is that the party is divided. Suppressing it, and hiding it doesn't change that fact.
You yourself have railed about fiscal issues. Ron Pauls ideas are worth talking about...he's had the same point for years, and been right when everyone else was wrong. God forbid anyone hears someone speak of a different way.
You should ask yourself why there is a federal law that says nobody can be forced to vote a certain way. That's because it used to be you became a delegate, went to the convention, threw all the ideas out there, came to agreement, and nominated someone. That's who everyone then got behind....after everyone had a say.
Everyone loved Reagan...well he wouldn't have been President under these rules.
You can talk about delegates all you want. Romney had the majority. Ron Paul had alot more support than anyone else besides Romney. Santorum didn't have a plurality in 5 states...neither did the rest.
Ron Paul had it in 11 states. Rules were changed or ignored. You just watched what appeared to be a vote on a rule....not only was it blatantly obvious that it was pretty even, you saw a teleprompter that showed that it didn't matter. Roberts rules weren't followed either. This shows our political system for what it is.
Since when does the minority not get a say? In the United States...
The American people are asleep at the wheel...and the last thing the people in power want is for someone to tell the honest truth. Personally i think they couldn't have been more stupid. It would have been better to let him talk, and still lose. Instead they have shown many that your vote doesn't matter.
Quote: Well,. that sounded like a tie at best to me. I don't like stuff that is stuffed down peoples' throats.
As far as the issue of not having free delegates, well, I don't think that any delegates should be freed to vote for anyone other then the person they were elected to vote for. If a candidate exits the race, he (or she) should have the right to either release their delegates to the eventual nominee, or to release them to vote their conscience.
As far as Parties being eliminated, that's not going to happen. The country has gotten too large, and the government is far too huge to ever govern effectively without Parties and partnerships among Party members. My major concern is that we get far too many all or nothing Party line votes. People are punished for going against Party leadership on big issues. That's horrible. People should be free to vote their consciences, in the best interests of their constituents, rather than voting as directed by their leadership.
I don't know what the answer is.
I definitely know what the answer is, but I just don't think it will happen any time soon. The answer is people really need to start waking up, questioning everything Washington and the political parties do, and start forming their beliefs from the truth, rather than trying to contort the truth to fit around their beliefs.
Heck, you see it all the time where people just refuse to believe that there is any other answer than voting for one political party (there is one particular poster on this board who is a great example of that), no matter how badly we all get swindled. A lot of people in this country are simply dismissive at the onset of people who question what both parties do. Heck, look at the reaction to PDR's posts on this board.
A lot of people rip on my generation (Gen Y) for saying it's spoiled and it has things easy. In many ways, especially comparing technology over the generations, it's true. But as far as I've seen, a lot of people I know who are my age (29) and some of the younger Gen X'ers are the first people I see who are questioning the way the system currently works as a whole (it's a great system run by bad people).
We're the ones who will have to confront and begin paying off the national debt. We've been lied to our entire lives, and people wonder why our generation won't commit to things like buying a house or taking on long term financial obligations.
I hope the incoming generation of skeptics cleans things out. But that's all I have right now, is hope.
/rant
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Quote: And he won only a very minute portion of the primary electorate. Where is the cut off? Do we allow Santorum to write his own portion of the platform? Gingrich as well? What a cluster that would be ..... even though the platform is non-binding and largely meaningless.
This is nice. Maybe you can explain why there wasn't a "These are what your morals will be" clause added for Santorum....or a "base on the moon" for Gingrich?
Why add some stuff that "so few" wanted? Why did they bother to add the 'audit the fed', 'internet freedom', and 'wars are declared' language?
I think its great that they basically said that maybe we should take a look at what these people that we put in charge of our money supply are doing.
And maybe we should keep that whole 'free speech thing' going on the internet.
And maybe we should actually declare war the way the Constitution says?
Whew.....thank God that they actually don't have to follow all that stuff.
Don't you see the hypocrisy in it all?
"This is what we stand for"....join our party if you share our beliefs. We're not gonna really do that though....you can however pay by check or credit-card.
Instead we endorse someone who "says" they are republican. Shouldn't the republicans be deciding if a person's actions and words follow a parties goals?
Shouldn't a party follow it's own rules? Follow their own beliefs?
Most "conservatives" now have a "moderate" Presidental nominee.
So bascially its become the "lesser of two evils"....."yes, thank you...i'll take a bite of the smaller s**t sandwich"
Forget the law...forget rules...if you have the power you do what you want. Whats the name for that?
Paul does have some fiscal ideas worth talking about. However he would do the Party no good by talking about ending all federal spending except for the bare minimum, ending almost every penny of social spending and slashing the defense budget and bringing home every member of the armed forces from every base around the world.
I like some of Rom Paul's ideas ..... but frankly many of his ideal scare the hell out of me, and would ensure that the Republicans are seen as extremists.
He wants to end Social Security .... eventually. Completely. Could you see if this was brought up on the floor of the convention? The Democrats would have a field day.
He wants to end Medicare and Medicaid. Can you imagine the mileage the Democrats would get out of that?
There are other ideas he espouses, like military action and staging around the world, foreign aid, and others that sound good on the surface, but which could easily cause major problems for the US in the future. Imagine if we had cut ourselves off from the world as Paul wants, and an attack like 9-11 happened. How hard, if not downright impossible, would it have been to fight a war without staging rights, overflight rights, and so on. If the US doesn't work to build and maintain alliances around the world, then why would anyone do us any favors when we need help? Hell, it's hard enough to get help from many of our allies as it is.
I do think that we should pull back somewhat from our staging around the world ..... pulling back to a minimal number of bases in strategic locations, and then telling our allies that we expect them to act like allies and expect their backing if they expect the same from us. However, that is a huge difference from what Paul has suggested.
There is a lot of admirable stuff in many of Paul's proposals. However, if you want to talk about "scaring seniors" .... Paul would do it. If you want to lose the election, that would be a huge first step.
There are many other proposals that would prove difficult to defend politically. Doing away with the Federal Reserve, and going back to the gold standard would be good as far as controlling the value of our money ..... however it would also be difficult to handle currency in a worldwide market where other countries manipulate their currencies at will. The Democrats would say something along the lines of "Not only do the Republicans want to take away your SS and Medicare, but they want to do it about 60% of the way through the year when the government runs out of money. Not only that but they would then shut down all regulatory agencies, the FDA, the FAA, and so on. How safe would you be? How would you even live?
It would be effective too.
This is going to call for smaller steps than what Paul proposes. He wants to go for it all today. That's a losing course. If he was allowed to speak on such matters at the Convention, it would lose the election as well, as the Republican nominee would be joined to him by proximity.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: Paul does have some fiscal ideas worth talking about. However he would do the Party no good by talking about ending all federal spending except for the bare minimum, ending almost every penny of social spending and slashing the defense budget and bringing home every member of the armed forces from every base around the world.
Are you for smaller federal government and fiscal responsibility? Or is it just that you don't like how they spend the money?
Ron Paul has done nothing more than tell the truth. This country is broke. You say he wants to end every penny of social spending. That's bull. He wanted to preserve it for the people that are dependent on it, and phase it out.
There is also a big difference in war spending, and nation building, and defense spending. You should actually take a look at his "plan to restore America".
Even after all those "crazy" cuts, we would have had like a 0.1% budget surplus after like 3 years.
And honestly our troops should be home protecting our borders. Spending their money here.
I'm sure everyone here could come up with 100 noble ways to spend money. Problem is we don't have any. That's the insanity of it all. We borrow money so we can lend it out or spend it...then when the bill comes due, we print/borrow more. When does it end?
Quote: He wants to end Social Security .... eventually. Completely. Could you see if this was brought up on the floor of the convention? The Democrats would have a field day.
He's honest about it, and made two valid points.
On the one side people were promised something. We have taxed you and then when you retire you'll get some money to live off when your older. He wants to be able to fulfill this obligation.
The other is to let young people opt out. They will never see a dollar of it..and if they do you can wipe your butt with it for what it will be worth.
The fed's have been spending this money not saving it. Now with the deficits and money printing these people on fixed incomes are getting screwed. If we have to print the money to issue the checks...and this devalues the dollar, and increases costs thru inflation, then didn't we just "get rid of social security" You really think any old person is "secure" their money is worthless.
Forget the democrats...the "people" are gonna be pissed when they realize what is going on.
I'm not a Bible thumper, and i'm not religious either....but there is only one time that Jesus got pissed...and that was when the money changers were robbing the people by controlling the value of money.
Ignorance was bliss...as long as you could find a job...now people are going to start looking for answers when the pain gets bad enough. Don't let Ron Paul talk, or people might get ideas.
Medicare and Medicaid...we don't have the money for those either....more promises...."run the presses"
I'm pretty sure he just wants cheap medical services available to all. Evidently the federal government sucks at doing stuff efficiently. Does socialism work?
Why are medical costs so high? Regulations. lawsuits. Insurance. Research. You could name a ton of things. Most have been meddled with by the government driving up costs.
If there was no insurance/medicaid for anyone tomorrow what would happen?
Costs would drop to the point that people were willing to pay. Insurance used to exist for the emergency. Now it's for the everyday visit.
If High blood pressure meds were so expensive that nobody could afford them what would happen? Wouldn't they lower the price? They want to sell stuff right?
The foreign policy stuff is the hot issue. Why can't we just declare war? That's right no country attacked us. We could give money to israel....and all their enemies around them. What does that do?
Iran's duly elected (that's democracy right?) government is going to nationalize oil? American companies have interests there. Over-throw them. They took American hostages?...."Hello Saddam" need some cash to cause some problems in iran? Gonna gas a few minorities? we see nothing....
"The russian's are coming...." Hi Mr. bin laden, need some money and weapons?
Oh wait....Saddam is in Kuwait.
We go to defend kuwait (or kuwait's oil) even though bin laden wanted to. Set up permanent bases which pisses off bin laden.
Then 9/11 happens. Goodbye taliban. Darn bin laden got away....
On to iraq..."weapons of mass destruction"
iraq is a mess. afganistan is a mess. lybia is a mess. We are fighting al-qida in iraq and afganistan, and we are funding al-qida in syria. iran is next.
This is insane.
Almost seems like those countries have something we need...like oil?. Not to mention all the companies that profit along the way selling and rebuilding stuff.
It's worth it though right? All those kids dead, all the inflation and price increases. All in the name of national defense.
At the end of the day this country is broke...cuts will have to come from somewhere. But where? For every thing that is important to you that we maintain, there will be something that someone else thinks we need to get rid of.
This is where the problem lies. Everyone always talks about how Congress should work together and get things done, or blames the other side. Its simply not possible.
Most of these issues should be states issues, and the federal government should be out of it.
This way if a state does something stupid then people can leave, or they have a better chance of making changes.
Our armies should be for defense, and defense only.
If you come out and say that you are going to do away with Social Security and Medicare and so on, you will NEVER win. NEVER.
I want massive cuts to federal spending. However it has to be balanced against the political realities that dictate those stands that will prohibit winning an election.
We will never get down to a $1.5 trillion budget. There are going to be limits to what can be cut, and by how much. If the cuts go too deep too fast, then the Party doing the cutting will be booted out, possibly for quite a while.
It's going to take a careful choosing of battles, and carefully choosing of cuts. A massive across the board cut is never going to be approved by the general public.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
The problem with Paul's philosophy is that it assumes human nature will work in favor without regulations. Not everyone is selfless and willing to work for the common good. I'm an optimist but I'm not stupid enough to believe there won't be a bad apple in every bunch.
Regulations and such are there to try and curb those trying to take advantage of the system for their own personal gain. Do regulations always work? Not at all. One can look to our current system to see that regulations can't stop everything.
Quote: I definitely know what the answer is, but I just don't think it will happen any time soon. The answer is people really need to start waking up, questioning everything Washington and the political parties do, and start forming their beliefs from the truth, rather than trying to contort the truth to fit around their beliefs.
Exactly. That's the theme of the Romney campaign. He makes blanket "Repulican" statements with no substance, and he's not disclosed any plans as to how he's going to address the important issues. He flip flops as much as Kerry did. As far as Obama goes, most of his commercials are slamming Romney for wanting to close Planned Parenthood.....like it's a huge issue that's more important than eliminating the deficit, reducing the national debt or creating jobs. Both parties lack an effective plan to address the real problems this country's facing. They're more concerned with bickering over emotionally charged yet meaningless issues.
What I find funny are the hypocritical posters here that claim to be conservative yet slam Romney and stick up for Obama every chance they get. Romney's bad and Obama is worse, but I'm not going to whore out my vote to support a candidate who was forced down my throat because he's willing to toe the party line.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
The reality is how do you balance the budget? What gets cut? Can you honestly say that the federal government isn't wasteful?
At some point people will have to become responsible for their own actions.
The government does more to hinder this than anything else.
They have given us an un-stable currency -
Many of these older people have saved their whole lives. They lived within their means like you should. They were smart and saved for retirement. Now their money is worthless. They are punished with low interest rates, and high prices.
We are over-regulated and over-taxed -
Small businesses are the heart and soul of this country. Its difficult to do anything without having to jump thru hoops left and right. All these regulations drive up costs, and don't help anything. All they do is drive companies overseas.
The people THINK they need social security...they THINK they need medicare/medicaid.
What they want is to feel secure. To survive.
They want to have food and shelter when they are too old to work. They want to have access to medical services when they need them.
The very things that the government created to try and provide them don't do that.
The only thing that the government did was gain control of us....now we NEED them.
Vote for me and i'll take care of you. Vote for me or the other guy will take this away. I would have, except they stopped us.
When does that end exactly? It doesn't.
What if Ron Paul told people that they were being robbed? What if he told all those seniors on social security that instead of the $700 they are getting per month, that they should be getting $1397 per month. Think they would like that?
What if he told them that medical costs would go down? How did people get care before medicare and medicaid? What if he told them that insurance....if they wanted it would be affordable?
Would he get booted out then? What if things got better?
What if companies started to hire? What if banks started competing for customers by offering higher interest rates to savers?
What if you had more money in your paycheck?
Does he still get the boot?
Did we have a military in 2005? That's what we would have spent on defense under Ron Paul...still 4x more than China. web page
You would have no clue if half those cuts took place. Except for the fact that you might end up taxed less, and you pay check would go further.
Its a mess...i'll give you that. You can't just do something without giving hope either. Kicking the can down the road doesn't seem to be helping though.
Maybe the Mayans are right and it will all be over soon anyway. It certainly seems like total collapse is the only solution.
Hell, if there weren't so many people who would be thrown into abject poverty and massive chaos ...... I would say just scrap the whole mess and start over from scratch.
Unfortunately, cuts are almost impossible. We fight over cutting increases ......
We do need to actually make cuts across the board. However, they have to be made within the political realities of today's world.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: slamming Romney for wanting to close Planned Parenthood.....like it's a huge issue that's more important than eliminating the deficit, reducing the national debt or creating jobs.
What most people don't understand is that in an election, ANY issue is important if it buys you a segment of the population. The Democrats keep coming back to the Planned Parenthood thing for the same reason they keep bringing up abortion and the issue of "free" female contraceptives is an "issue"... it buys the female vote. I can't even tell you how many women I see on Facebook daily that are against the Romney ticket simply based upon these issues.
If the Dems can capture 60-70% of the female vote off of this, and simply split on the male vote.... that's victory. They don't really give a damn (generally speaking) about the actual issues... they play the issue because their opponent's stance on the issue is clear and in the open and undeniable... thus, it is something they can latch onto heavily and they are playing it for all it's worth.
None of it has anything to do with what is best for the country - only which blocks of voters can they swing to their side in November. That's it.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
The political parties no longer represent the middle, republicans especially. You are totally left or totally right, with nothing in the middle. Our elected officials can no longer vote their conscience or they will be branded as a traitor by the party and punished for their views.
America does not work that way, it is impossible for someone to be a fiscal conservative and a social progressive without confusing the minions.
So we are left with a lot of name calling and gotcha politics. Contrary to the popular belief, the president is not a socialist, marxist or even a liberal. I have grown tired of the vitriol and fact free claims that is associated with him.
I wish for a third moderate american party every day of the year, but like the tea party is would probably be fractured to maintain status quo.
If we have to go by political realities then nothing will change....ever.
All of these issues that we squabble about should be for the states. The states do what the people want.
We have states that do all sorts of different things. Some have the death penalty...others don't. Nevada has legal prostitution. Some have legalized medical marijuana. Some have different divorce laws. Others say same sex marriage is ok. Others have different gun laws. Different speed limits. Gambling.
You name it. It all works, because that's what the people want.
The federal government was given certain powers. That is ALL the power it should have.
Want to make abortion illegal? Talk to your state rep. Same sex marriage? state rep.
ect.
Instead they tell us how to run our schools. What we can eat. What people can do with their own body.
Their hand is in everything.
Can you honestly tell me that you would even know if the military was operating under the 2005 budget number?
Would you even know if there was no federal department of education? Or no federal epa?
These things all existed at the state level first.
All this rhetoric by the federal government is ridiculous. But we consent to it right? Every time we vote the party line....too bad the party don't actually follow it's own line.
I know full well we argue over cutting increases...that's why nothing changes. The answer doesn't lie in how you change it. It lies in helping people understand what's going on.
Most people see a commercial and vote. Or they say their a "republican" or "democrat". Well what does that mean? And vote accordingly.
The political reality of it all is most people in this country aren't informed enough to rationally vote. That's why the delegate system was created, so the motivated informed grass-roots could go hash it out.
Quote: What most people don't understand is that in an election, ANY issue is important if it buys you a segment of the population.
I think EVERYONE understands that..and they use it to their advantage. That IS the problem. Everyone wants something. Politicians want to give it to get re-elected.
These people in that video cared about the bigger issues, and want them brought to light. If our election process is scripted then are we really free?
The 2 party system blocks different ideas.
This country is a republic....not a democracy. The majority is only supposed to be able to go so far at the federal level. The states gave the federal government limited power. Seems to me like they have all of it.
The feds shouldn't be funding planned parenthood. Now if the people in Ohio want to have a planned parenthood, then fine...pay for it yourself. No votes to be gained there.
We give all this power to the federal government, and they have a printing press, and we are all complaining about the results.
I'm sorry but I couldn't live in a country where certain states endorsed completely segregated schools, prohibited marriage rights, or suppress the rights of any human being.
Yes, I realize that's sort of how it works now. The government still has the power to enforce that none of the above happens. This is why I cannot endorse libertarian ideology.
Quote: I'm sorry but I couldn't live in a country where certain states endorsed completely segregated schools, prohibited marriage rights, or suppress the rights of any human being.
But your fine if the federal government does it?
Nobody should be discriminated against for the color of their skin...or their religion. I can agree with that. We all should have a right to our property and our life. That's what liberty is.
Marriage absolutely should not be a federal issue. Its a contract between two people. I know, because i'm still paying for it just ask my ex-wife.
This is a moral issue....why should one persons beliefs trump someone elses? Majority rules?
Doesn't the marriage issue suppress the rights of some? Some people want same sex marriage...others don't. This is one of those stupid issues.
Everyone is fine as long as things are going the way they want. As soon as they don't like something, they have NO problem taking it from someone else.
If you don't like what your state is doing you could move to a different state. Businesses do it all the time looking for lower taxes.
Once the federal government does it where do you go then?
They amended the constitution to make alcohol illegal. Then changed it back.
Why didn't they do the same for drugs? Why didn't they amend the constitution to say abortion is legal?
Why didn't they amend the constitution saying they have the right to arrest you and hold you without trial? Or assassinate you?
Stupid issues belong with the states, where the people have to pay for them.
Quote: I'm sorry but I couldn't live in a country where certain states endorsed completely segregated schools, prohibited marriage rights, or suppress the rights of any human being.
Yes, I realize that's sort of how it works now. The government still has the power to enforce that none of the above happens. This is why I cannot endorse libertarian ideology.
The Fourteenth Amendment enforces the Constitutional Bill of Rights against the States, so they're prohibited directly by the words of the Constitution from doing those things. Previously the BoR only applied to the fed government.
BrownieElf brings up some good points which the federal government has largely ignored. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, abortion, education, and a slew of other things. Therefore the federal government should butt out and let each state handle these issues as they may.
Also, I disagree repubs and democrats are both on the right. There is no left and right. They're each in it for themselves and they love creating the divisive nature of left and right to justify their own existences. Think about it - when did you last see a political ad where the candidate said "this is the agenda I support and here's how and why" rather than "this other guy on the left/right wants your children to be eaten by wolves so vote for me."
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Quote: The Dems and The GOP are both right. Neither party is left by any means.
So half of the people in the country paying no taxes, 108 million people are receiving government assistance, government mandating healthcare, $15 trillion in debt, eroding states rights... and everybody in government leans right?
Quote: So half of the people in the country paying no taxes, 108 million people are receiving government assistance, government mandating healthcare, $15 trillion in debt, eroding states rights... and everybody in government leans right?
Maybe they cut the increases and it would have been worse or the needle is broke... or they are 'conserving' brain cells by not using them?
Quote: Also, I disagree repubs and democrats are both on the right. There is no left and right. They're each in it for themselves and they love creating the divisive nature of left and right to justify their own existences. Think about it - when did you last see a political ad where the candidate said "this is the agenda I support and here's how and why" rather than "this other guy on the left/right wants your children to be eaten by wolves so vote for me."
I do hate the classifications too. They don't mean squat, and they do nothing more than divide everyone, or label us in a certain way. Personally i think they just argue about where the money gets spent. Nobody wants to actually stop spending it.
And i have to agree about the plan too. Nobody has one. Well Ron Paul did, and everyone screamed that he's nuts. Maybe the people should have looked at the numbers and started asking questions to the congress and president about who authorized all this overspending. Guess i can say the same exact thing about the voters...
Personally i think they just argue about where the money gets spent. Nobody wants to actually stop spending it.
So don't do what's right, do what's going to get you elected?
People in neither party are going to do what's right because there are going to be too many lobbyists that are going to lose too too much money and therefore will not donate the money to get these guys elected.
So in this case rather than hear the truth, they just quell the voice of the person telling the truth.
King
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
.. Right out of the text books .
