Chowder138
Proud member of PAHAAA.
I copied it so I could more easily quote some of your major grammatical errors and forgot to delete it. No need to get pissy.
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter Medea
- Start date
I copied it so I could more easily quote some of your major grammatical errors and forgot to delete it. No need to get pissy.
Hotty Squirrel
GENOCIDE JUNKIE!
i wasnt i was just wondering, you didnt have to show everything, i dont care what people think anyways, ill post whatever/however i want
Hotty Squirrel
GENOCIDE JUNKIE!
Ehh don't worry about him, i don't listen to anyone anyways, doesn't really concern me.. i just like talking a lot
plus i am voting for Obama if you wanna know. but independents is my way of saying i don't care what you think because i decide for myself and my choices are usually a good thing too.
Hotty Squirrel
GENOCIDE JUNKIE!
oh plus if you took offense to the park i said "i don't care what you think" i mean that in general what people think not you personally... sorry if you thought that
Medea
The Shadow Queen
I'm just a good mediator... I want everyone to love everyone, no matter what their political beliefs are. That's the problem with this country right now: Everyone is so divided because of politics. If everyone worked together to solve problems, instead of demonizing people. we would get a lot more done, and government would be the effective deterrent it's supposed to be against all other forms of anarchy or corporate takeover... we can't afford to let that happen.
Medea
The Shadow Queen
As far as states rights go, I don't think that the states should be given the power to override federal law. I'm sorry, but when you agree with this kind of mentality, you are basically saying that the civil war was constitutionally "correct". We can't afford to split apart anymore. If it was north vs. south again it would be a detrimental loss of life and liberty for the country.
You have to remember that the constitution was written 150 years ago for one thing.... We have had several amendments to the constitution since that time to keep up with the progression of civilization. The constitution should not be looked at as the "be all, end all" way of thinking in a progressive society. It may sound horrible, but hear me out...
At the time the constitution was written, society was FAR different than it is today... Soon after that, we had the Dixiecrats. Dixiecrats, today, are what we would consider "conservative democrats". While the north, under the leadership of Lincoln, were considered to be "liberal republicans". Today, such affiliation is few and far between.
Since the civil rights, and the founding of several powerful corporations, which would be considered "constitutionally correct", society has changed drastically.... Don't tell me that if the founding fathers were around today, that they would agree with corporations being considered people, or the rich being entitled to all that they have, with the justice branch doing all they can to help them, while the poor are struggling. This is not the America the founding fathers had in mind! I know, Rand Paul fans might think I'm "CWAZY", but I think Rand Paul is "CWAZY".... do you really think we should follow a pre-industrial age edict in a modern-age society?
BTW, for all you Rand Paul fans.... have you played Bioshock, or read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". If you haven't, you should. This is what nutcases like him think society should actually be like. I shudder to think of what America would be like under a libertarian nightmare like the one described in Ayn Rand's novel.
EDIT: I bet you didn't know Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand..... Ayn RAND... RAND paul. It's just another little secret the "DENIALICANS" (closet-case republican "libertarians", who won't admit they are actually republicans) won't tell you.
You have to remember that the constitution was written 150 years ago for one thing.... We have had several amendments to the constitution since that time to keep up with the progression of civilization. The constitution should not be looked at as the "be all, end all" way of thinking in a progressive society. It may sound horrible, but hear me out...
At the time the constitution was written, society was FAR different than it is today... Soon after that, we had the Dixiecrats. Dixiecrats, today, are what we would consider "conservative democrats". While the north, under the leadership of Lincoln, were considered to be "liberal republicans". Today, such affiliation is few and far between.
Since the civil rights, and the founding of several powerful corporations, which would be considered "constitutionally correct", society has changed drastically.... Don't tell me that if the founding fathers were around today, that they would agree with corporations being considered people, or the rich being entitled to all that they have, with the justice branch doing all they can to help them, while the poor are struggling. This is not the America the founding fathers had in mind! I know, Rand Paul fans might think I'm "CWAZY", but I think Rand Paul is "CWAZY".... do you really think we should follow a pre-industrial age edict in a modern-age society?
BTW, for all you Rand Paul fans.... have you played Bioshock, or read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". If you haven't, you should. This is what nutcases like him think society should actually be like. I shudder to think of what America would be like under a libertarian nightmare like the one described in Ayn Rand's novel.
EDIT: I bet you didn't know Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand..... Ayn RAND... RAND paul. It's just another little secret the "DENIALICANS" (closet-case republican "libertarians", who won't admit they are actually republicans) won't tell you.
SprSynJn
Member
Just wanted to chime in with a comment.
Unless I'm mistaken, you cannot outlaw something that was never allowed in the first place. I do get what you're saying though. Someone also mentioned a couple pages ago that they were confused as to why Romney is so popular despite him "not knowing what he's doing". I'm pretty sure that's because those people just want someone other than who's already in office.
Unless I'm mistaken, you cannot outlaw something that was never allowed in the first place. I do get what you're saying though. Someone also mentioned a couple pages ago that they were confused as to why Romney is so popular despite him "not knowing what he's doing". I'm pretty sure that's because those people just want someone other than who's already in office.
Omega Dragon
Active Member
I am first and foremost a Panarchist, an Individualist of sorts.
Libertarians are not Randian-Objectivists. Ayn Rand despised libertarianism and anarchism. She hated Rothbard because he was "too anarchist" for her taste. What she wanted is nothing short of a corporatocratic system, which is what the U.S. has had since its foundation.
Ron Paul is also no libertarian, he is just a plain ole conservative. Libertarians like myself have no problem burning the constitution and the American flag, unlike the Randians and Paulians whom want to worship it like it's some holy book. Whether we are anarchists, agorists, voluntaryists, or panarchists, we see the constitution for what it is: mercantilist propaganda, nationalist garbage, remnants of a British monarch; and likewise, understand half the founding fathers for the traitors of liberty they were. (As Patrick Henry said at the constitutional convention: "I smell a rat!" - he was talking about George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, etc.; all of them federalists, treasonous by their own words.)
I personally like what Lysander Spooner said best though:
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner
"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." - Lysander Spooner
But you're probably about libertarians in the GOP, though. I'll give you that. I mean they are minarchists, after all; some even go so far as to support the fascist ideals of intellectual property. Kinda like all the other wannabe-anarchists in the rest of the western world that still want a government around so long as it suits them and their arbitrary ideals. Hypocrisy? Not necessarily, maybe complacency though.
Libertarians are not Randian-Objectivists. Ayn Rand despised libertarianism and anarchism. She hated Rothbard because he was "too anarchist" for her taste. What she wanted is nothing short of a corporatocratic system, which is what the U.S. has had since its foundation.
Ron Paul is also no libertarian, he is just a plain ole conservative. Libertarians like myself have no problem burning the constitution and the American flag, unlike the Randians and Paulians whom want to worship it like it's some holy book. Whether we are anarchists, agorists, voluntaryists, or panarchists, we see the constitution for what it is: mercantilist propaganda, nationalist garbage, remnants of a British monarch; and likewise, understand half the founding fathers for the traitors of liberty they were. (As Patrick Henry said at the constitutional convention: "I smell a rat!" - he was talking about George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, etc.; all of them federalists, treasonous by their own words.)
I personally like what Lysander Spooner said best though:
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner
"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." - Lysander Spooner
But you're probably about libertarians in the GOP, though. I'll give you that. I mean they are minarchists, after all; some even go so far as to support the fascist ideals of intellectual property. Kinda like all the other wannabe-anarchists in the rest of the western world that still want a government around so long as it suits them and their arbitrary ideals. Hypocrisy? Not necessarily, maybe complacency though.
Howarthee
Qa'Darri - The unknown thief
I wasn't talking about overriding federal law. I was saying that the government shouldn't be in civil matters that the states can handle themselves, like gay marriage and abortion. The government is there to hold the states together, not control them completely. If the government had no say in those such things, then they'd be more worried about the economy and what our allies/enemies are doing overseas.
I don't want the Constitution to be the "end all be all," but I think, to make this a better country, we should take a look at which parts we have continually gone by and which parts we haven't and maybe updating those parts to make a slightly better fit to our country now.
Chowder138
Proud member of PAHAAA.
I agree with the overriding of federal law part, but when it comes to gay marriage, guns, or even abortion, that should be entirely up to the discretion of the state. Look at Kennesaw, GA. Crime free for 25 years because it's required to own a gun.
Medea
The Shadow Queen
I'm just a good mediator... I want everyone to love everyone, no matter what their political beliefs are. That's the problem with this country right now: Everyone is so divided because of politics. If everyone worked together to solve problems, instead of demonizing people. we would get a lot more done, and government would be the effective deterrent it's supposed to be against all other forms of anarchy or corporate takeover... we can't afford to let that happen.
HAHAHA! I was hammered when I wrote this post! It's so goofy! "Come on guys, let's all get in a big pile and cuddle all day!" wtf
Chowder138
Proud member of PAHAAA.
No.
The belief that Mitt Romney doesn't care about poor people and the middle class is a misunderstanding. On T.V., yes, he said that he wasn't concerned about the very poor. Why? Because of welfare. Because of social security. Because of food stamps. All of those systems that we have in place that make it so the poor that live in mobile homes don't even have to get off of their asses at all. That's what he's talking about.
During the same interview, he also said that his main priority is the middle class. People that are struggling, but make just enough that they don't qualify for any of the things that I just mentoned. And while the poor are using food stamps for food, but buy beer and cigarettes with their own money, are living the easy life.
Medea
The Shadow Queen
It was just meant as sarcasm. I don't think Romney would actually like to shoot poor people.
But the policies he supports simply don't match up with his statement that the middle class is his number one priority. I agree that some people take advantage of the system, but the vast majority of people on welfare, social security and food stamps are handicapped, mentally disabled or have dependents that are disabled, elderly, etc.
Many of them also have jobs, but cannot afford to pay the bills. We pay 2.6 billion dollars every year for food stamps for Wal-Mart employees, and over a billion in healthcare costs. These people are hard workers, they just don't make enough because of Wal-Mart's intentionally low wages and refusal to allow their workers to form unions. That's not welfare for the people, that's welfare for Wal-Mart at the people's expense.
I hardly think that the poor are "living the easy life", Chowder. Poor people in this country might have it better than poor people in third world countries, but they struggle to pay the bills while the rich dicks like Eric Cantor say things like this: "If you get sick, sell you house, sell your car, sell everything you own, try to get charity, and if that doesn't work beg the government to help you." He said this to a woman at a town hall meeting who was asking what to do if one lost their job and didn't have the money to pay for healthcare costs. I couldn't find the video...it seems like everywhere I looked the video was taken down for "legal" reasons.... But this is pretty much word for word what he said, and this is someone who's vowed to LIMIT government in every way possible, except for when it comes to telling people what they can and cannot do in their bedroom.
Chowder138
Proud member of PAHAAA.
I guess I shouldn't have said "living the easy life," but my base point still stands.
You have a point though.
Medea
The Shadow Queen
The VP debate was lively. I expected Biden and Ryan to start fist-fighting during some of the topics they were discussing. lol But it was a huge contrast to the first presidential debate. Again, it was a close debate, depending on what your own views are. Once again the moderator was completely worthless, which actually made the debate more exciting.
Biden was much tougher than Obama, but he seemed like he was enjoying himself more than he should, and he was a little too....condescending? (I hate to say it, since I hate Paul Ryan so much) Ryan kept up on "substance", but overall was a bore-fest, imo, and was constantly on the defensive. I have to give this one to Biden.
Biden was much tougher than Obama, but he seemed like he was enjoying himself more than he should, and he was a little too....condescending? (I hate to say it, since I hate Paul Ryan so much) Ryan kept up on "substance", but overall was a bore-fest, imo, and was constantly on the defensive. I have to give this one to Biden.
Omega Dragon
Active Member
Yeah, but were there any moments when we can see Obama screaming off to the side like a baseball coach telling Biden, "QUIT TALKING!!! JUST SHUT UP YOU BLABBERMOUTH!!!"? Cause if no jokes can be made about Joe "Blabbermouth" Biden for the debate, then damn, I just lost a dollar bet!
Medea
The Shadow Queen
Biden did interrupt Ryan, probably a little more than he should, and Ryan got a pretty good snip in about Biden sticking his foot in his mouth in the past, but overall I think Ryan fans will be disappointed that Ryan wasn't more aggressive, just like Obama fans were in the first debate vs. Romney. More likely, they'll whine about Biden being a "big bully", which is what actual bullies do when you finally punch them in the nose.
Hargood
Defender of Helpless Kittens
Biden did interrupt Ryan, probably a little more than he should, and Ryan got a pretty good snip in about Biden sticking his foot in his mouth in the past, but overall I think Ryan fans will be disappointed that Ryan wasn't more aggressive, just like Obama fans were in the first debate vs. Romney. More likely, they'll whine about Biden being a "big bully", which is what actual bullies do when you finally punch them in the nose.
Funny, because that is also the same thing the Bullied person says when they are punched in the face by the bully.
