ARQ- hey I gotta go, but would like to talk more tomorrow, because I would like to know your experience from the immigrant side of things. How hard is it to become a citizen in the current system?
real quick- The great strengths of our country are it's natural resources and labor, that is, it's people. The wealth produced and earned in this country is more than many other countries combined- and yet we are in dreadful debt. Because the size of the gov't- not the military- is SO big. (We do have the largest military also, but that's not where all the money goes, despite the two wars and what some people say). The gov't should cut costs in a recession just like all of us have to.
The idea of being able to tell the gov't how to spend my tax dollars is Utopian- meaning I wish I could do that!!
The only way we can do that now is vote them out if we don't like it, and vote them in if we do.
But Im operating in a liberal environment here, and honestly, I'd settle for scaling back to state level from where we are, and call it a victory.
But are you for NO law? Anywhere? After all, nothing can be both legal, and illegal. It has to be something, at some level- I'll take the state, unless you want abortion, pot, education, etc, to all be decided at the neighborhood level.... that's a lot of voting.
3- The Patriot Act, I believe, is necessary and vital to Nat'l Security- and so did the Democrats- that's why they extended it. It really only allows for eaves dropping on calls/emails into or out of the US- and the law got a bad rap. Most of you will probably disagree w/ me on this, but its just our opinions.
of course the democrats voted to extend it. its big brother bullshit. its their wet dream. Republicans too. National security is their excuse to do whatever they want.
you cant claim to be for smaller federal government and the constitution and then be ok with the way it (and the arizona law) completely ignores basic civil rights and our protections against warrantless search and seizure as provided for by the constitution.
this is the problem with the whole left/right conservative/liberal bullshit. its nothing more than a collection of arbitrary beliefs designed to keep the two party system going. both sides pick and choose which parts of the constitution they want to keep and which rights they decide to grant us.
the true spectrum isnt based on liberalism/conservatism but on a combination of anarchism<->totalitarianism (authority scale) and libertarianism<->collectivism (economy scale).
most people are too lazy to really decide what their beliefs are and accept whatever they are told to think, even if some of their stances on the issues are completely contradictory to each other.
good question. I believe it is a State issue, and the FEDERAL gov't shouldn't be telling me what to do in MY bedroom, with MY body.
If someone doesn't like Same-Sex Marriage, then they can move to a state that has outlawed it. If you are for it, then there are states where like-minded Americans have chosen to live and govern themselves in that way- and you are free to live there uninhibited.
Marijuana, Abortion, Same Sex Marriage, etc... These are all state issues to me. Let the people vote, and live the way they want to.
Stay out big Govt!!!
I know I am definitely in the minority here in America on this subject, but the entire concept of state's rights seems... well... wrong to me. At the end of the day, a person from Arizona is just as much of an American as a person from Alaska - it seems odd that one group of Americans should demand the right to live by different laws based solely on arbitrary geographical boundaries. On top of that, I am DEFINITELY against state's rights when it is used as an excuse to defend prejudice. A particular state shouldn't be given the legal right to discriminate against minorities (whether they're of the sexual or racial nature) simply because that particular state wants to live in the 1800s. Sometimes the federal government needs to step in and kick some ass if it's in the name of promoting equality and common sense. A person shouldn't have to move away from their home and live in a different state just to get equal rights - nobody gets a say in what color skin they have or what type of person they're attracted to, so why should a state be given the right to discriminate against them because they find certain minorities "icky?"
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Usually the conservative people in the USA says, Small Government, Low Taxes/debt, no Govt in Personal Life. The problem most people have with all that lately is they say one thing and do another.
Small Government: So like how is it not BIG Government that you want states to decide. California is a pretty dang big government, bigger than the entire UK and has more people than Canada. Shouldn't everything actually come down to local ordinances at the city level? The folks who live in Austin would probably vote for a different set of laws than the larger Texas population, no? Maybe even home rule for neighborhoods, since (for example) what's good for Cleveland's University Circle neighborhood is not so good for Hough or Collinwood.
Low Taxes: The people that lead the Conservative party (since 1973-ish) do much worse at lowering the national debt than the Democrats. They increase spending and then lower taxes, running up debt which as you said puts the burden on your grandchildren. Republicans deride Democrats as "tax-and-spend" while in reality the Republicans practice "print and spend"!
Personal Life: The Left is actually the side that wants to let people do as they wish. Take your pick of issues that people can rightfully disagree on, the Right want everyone to conform to their version. The left would allow it and people that don't want to do it don't have to. That's what bugs me, the Right acts like we're going to be forced to have gay weddings and do drugs and drive Smartcars, when actually the Left wants to let people do their own thing. The major issue they're opposite on is firearm possession, which admittedly makes me scratch my head, but they have been laying off that for a while.
Now, you can go ahead and say that the Republicans are not truly Conservative and don't represent Conservative views. But in this country, you are either Democratic, Republican, or Not Represented. You can claim all you want to be separate from the Republican party but do the "other side" a favor and recognize that there's a spectrum within that party as well.
When the Republicans are spending money like it's water, forcing their specific values down other people's throats, and expanding the role of the Feds, it's pretty easy to see why thinking people react negatively. And the Internet has a pretty large faction of people who like to learn and discuss things rather than just nod and go with what was right for their parents.
"Money is no object," I said, "but I am on a budget."
i lean to the left, but i hate big goverment, so i'm screwed. i'm also pro-choice and anti-abortion, i believe it's wrong but that not having a choice is worse. so ya i'm screwed. maybe i'll move to New Zealand.
- smaller govt.
- lower taxes
- capitalism and private/small businesses are the backbone- stop hurting them w/ higher taxes
- stong military and national defense
- less gov't interference in my personal life
- the Constitution
Basically, I want the gov't to just LEAVE ME ALONE and quit spending our money (ie: our children's future) as fast as they can. They need to live on a budget like the rest of us.
Everyday they are more involved in my life than the last.
Government exists to serve the people, but these days, its like the Gov't thinks we exist to serve them.
What do you believe in?
Which conservative government actually enacted all of these pillars ?
i lean to the left, but i hate big goverment, so i'm screwed. i'm also pro-choice and anti-abortion, i believe it's wrong but that not having a choice is worse. so ya i'm screwed. maybe i'll move to New Zealand.
that post makes the most sense in this thread, actually.
its pretty circular. if you go far off in one extreme, you come back around on the other. the differences between libertarians (right) and green party types (left) probably isnt as different as people make them out to be.
I believe these parties could actually work together on a consensus unlike the two current parties in charge.
But Im operating in a liberal environment here, and honestly, I'd settle for scaling back to state level from where we are, and call it a victory.
But are you for NO law? Anywhere? After all, nothing can be both legal, and illegal. It has to be something, at some level- I'll take the state, unless you want abortion, pot, education, etc, to all be decided at the neighborhood level.... that's a lot of voting.
Actually I am for big government on all levels. I would rather have all of my basic needs met and be taxed, then none of them and have a few more dollars to piss away. But then I also have personal viewpoints towards many things that actually differ from my political viewpoints towards them (see also abortion).
I just feel being educated and objective towards a particular viewpoint is important before making a decision, but its also quite important to remember i am not the only person in this great country.
Thats basically why i vote Democrat instead of Green Party
8/29/00*5/2/03*7/2/03*7/3/03*7/11/03*9/28/04*5/24/06*6/28/08*5/15/10*5/17/10* 10/16/13*10/25/13* 4/28/16*4/28/16*8/5/16*8/7/16 EV 6/15/11 Brad 10/27/02
i agree with much of this, but the problem is you lump "printing and spending" republicans in with true fiscal conservatives, but Democrat's attempts to control and regulate everything is also in direct opposition to the left's desire to let people do what they want (like as you mentioned for the firearm thing).
both parties are extremely hypocritical.
Small Government: So like how is it not BIG Government that you want states to decide. California is a pretty dang big government, bigger than the entire UK and has more people than Canada. Shouldn't everything actually come down to local ordinances at the city level? The folks who live in Austin would probably vote for a different set of laws than the larger Texas population, no? Maybe even home rule for neighborhoods, since (for example) what's good for Cleveland's University Circle neighborhood is not so good for Hough or Collinwood.
Low Taxes: The people that lead the Conservative party (since 1973-ish) do much worse at lowering the national debt than the Democrats. They increase spending and then lower taxes, running up debt which as you said puts the burden on your grandchildren. Republicans deride Democrats as "tax-and-spend" while in reality the Republicans practice "print and spend"!
Personal Life: The Left is actually the side that wants to let people do as they wish. Take your pick of issues that people can rightfully disagree on, the Right want everyone to conform to their version. The left would allow it and people that don't want to do it don't have to. That's what bugs me, the Right acts like we're going to be forced to have gay weddings and do drugs and drive Smartcars, when actually the Left wants to let people do their own thing. The major issue they're opposite on is firearm possession, which admittedly makes me scratch my head, but they have been laying off that for a while.
Now, you can go ahead and say that the Republicans are not truly Conservative and don't represent Conservative views. But in this country, you are either Democratic, Republican, or Not Represented. You can claim all you want to be separate from the Republican party but do the "other side" a favor and recognize that there's a spectrum within that party as well.
When the Republicans are spending money like it's water, forcing their specific values down other people's throats, and expanding the role of the Feds, it's pretty easy to see why thinking people react negatively. And the Internet has a pretty large faction of people who like to learn and discuss things rather than just nod and go with what was right for their parents.
Another question for the right-leaners on this board, again, from the perspective of a foreigner still trying to figure you people out
What do you think of the constitutional amendments? The vibe I get from Republicans down here (in Louisiana) is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that's infallible and should never be changed. The problem I have with that is that the world isn't stopping spinning anytime soon, and society changes and advances a little more each and every day. The world is a much different place now than it was in 1787, and I think the laws of the land should be changed from time to time to reflect that. Yet, of the 27 amendments, just five have come in the last 50 years.
Do you think the document that governs the laws in America should be updated and revised more often to reflect what society is currently like, or do you think something that was written 223 years ago and has been adjusted 27 times since then is perfectly sufficient?
(final thought from a guy who knew how to make a point in a song)
"Come senators and congressmen, please heed the call,
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled,
There's a battle outside and it's raging,
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls,
For the times they are a-changing.
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
Don't criticize what you can't understand,
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand,
For the times they are a-changing."
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
its pretty circular. if you go far off in one extreme, you come back around on the other. the differences between libertarians (right) and green party types (left) probably isnt as different as people make them out to be.
I believe these parties could actually work together on a consensus unlike the two current parties in charge.
I'm probably a hybrid of these BTW.
most people here are, though they would hate to admit it.
Another question for the right-leaners on this board, again, from the perspective of a foreigner still trying to figure you people out
What do you think of the constitutional amendments? The vibe I get from Republicans down here (in Louisiana) is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that's infallible and should never be changed. The problem I have with that is that the world isn't stopping spinning anytime soon, and society changes and advances a little more each and every day. The world is a much different place now than it was in 1787, and I think the laws of the land should be changed from time to time to reflect that. Yet, of the 27 amendments, just five have come in the last 50 years.
Do you think the document that governs the laws in America should be updated and revised more often to reflect what society is currently like, or do you think something that was written 223 years ago and has been adjusted 27 times since then is perfectly sufficient?
(final thought from a guy who knew how to make a point in a song)
"Come senators and congressmen, please heed the call,
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled,
There's a battle outside and it's raging,
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls,
For the times they are a-changing.
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
Don't criticize what you can't understand,
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand,
For the times they are a-changing."
The Constitution is more of a solid springboard for laws and governorship, rather than something that can just be scratched up and redone.
Demolishing such a relic would bring the American economy and stability into such a downward tailspin.
Sounds strange, perhaps, but change breeds fear and fear breeds chaos.
8/29/00*5/2/03*7/2/03*7/3/03*7/11/03*9/28/04*5/24/06*6/28/08*5/15/10*5/17/10* 10/16/13*10/25/13* 4/28/16*4/28/16*8/5/16*8/7/16 EV 6/15/11 Brad 10/27/02
ARQ- hey I gotta go, but would like to talk more tomorrow, because I would like to know your experience from the immigrant side of things. How hard is it to become a citizen in the current system?
real quick- The great strengths of our country are it's natural resources and labor, that is, it's people. The wealth produced and earned in this country is more than many other countries combined- and yet we are in dreadful debt. Because the size of the gov't- not the military- is SO big. (We do have the largest military also, but that's not where all the money goes, despite the two wars and what some people say). The gov't should cut costs in a recession just like all of us have to.
The idea of being able to tell the gov't how to spend my tax dollars is Utopian- meaning I wish I could do that!!
The only way we can do that now is vote them out if we don't like it, and vote them in if we do.
what rate of change would you suggest? i just happen to think its an amazingly well written document that should only be changed sparingly. it should be difficult to change. i cant find fault with much of it.
but whatever is decided on should be followed. without it, there is no real contract with the government.
Another question for the right-leaners on this board, again, from the perspective of a foreigner still trying to figure you people out
What do you think of the constitutional amendments? The vibe I get from Republicans down here (in Louisiana) is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that's infallible and should never be changed. The problem I have with that is that the world isn't stopping spinning anytime soon, and society changes and advances a little more each and every day. The world is a much different place now than it was in 1787, and I think the laws of the land should be changed from time to time to reflect that. Yet, of the 27 amendments, just five have come in the last 50 years.
Do you think the document that governs the laws in America should be updated and revised more often to reflect what society is currently like, or do you think something that was written 223 years ago and has been adjusted 27 times since then is perfectly sufficient?
(final thought from a guy who knew how to make a point in a song)
"Come senators and congressmen, please heed the call,
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled,
There's a battle outside and it's raging,
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls,
For the times they are a-changing.
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
Don't criticize what you can't understand,
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand,
For the times they are a-changing."
I was outnumbered and on the defensive when I wrote that. I also got banned over the weekend for getting too personal last week.
I reiterate to you, my sincerest regrets for any offense I may have caused you, and look forward to an open-minded debate in the future.
Just not that many conservatives on here...
it isn't so offensive to me, but it makes it hard to help out in a thread where someone is being ganged up on.
No worries, I think that most on here would put me in the category of conservative, even thoughI would not label myself that way. I think there are plenty on here too, you will see them soon enough. I used to think the same thing you did, but I think the discussions in here are represented pretty fairly.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Another question for the right-leaners on this board, again, from the perspective of a foreigner still trying to figure you people out
What do you think of the constitutional amendments? The vibe I get from Republicans down here (in Louisiana) is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that's infallible and should never be changed. The problem I have with that is that the world isn't stopping spinning anytime soon, and society changes and advances a little more each and every day. The world is a much different place now than it was in 1787, and I think the laws of the land should be changed from time to time to reflect that. Yet, of the 27 amendments, just five have come in the last 50 years.
Do you think the document that governs the laws in America should be updated and revised more often to reflect what society is currently like, or do you think something that was written 223 years ago and has been adjusted 27 times since then is perfectly sufficient?
(final thought from a guy who knew how to make a point in a song)
"Come senators and congressmen, please heed the call,
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled,
There's a battle outside and it's raging,
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls,
For the times they are a-changing.
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
Don't criticize what you can't understand,
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand,
For the times they are a-changing."
The Constitution is more of a solid springboard for laws and governorship, rather than something that can just be scratched up and redone.
Demolishing such a relic would bring the American economy and stability into such a downward tailspin.
Sounds strange, perhaps, but change breeds fear and fear breeds chaos.
I guess it doesn't help that my sample size may not even truly be representative of the average American Republican (a lot of the Republicans I know here seem to be competing amongst themselves with regards to just how far right they can go lol).
I also didn't mean that it should be redone from scratch - I was more referring to it being updated and amended more often to keep it current. It kills me to see politicians float ideas to solve current societal problems, and the opposition tries to shoot it down by saying it's unconstitutional - as if a computer-era problem unequivocally has to be solved using pre-typewriter-era laws. I'm not saying it should be scrapped and started anew - you're right, that would screw a lot of things up - I'm just saying I'm in favor of tweaking it a little more often to keep it relevant.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Another question for the right-leaners on this board, again, from the perspective of a foreigner still trying to figure you people out
What do you think of the constitutional amendments? The vibe I get from Republicans down here (in Louisiana) is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that's infallible and should never be changed. The problem I have with that is that the world isn't stopping spinning anytime soon, and society changes and advances a little more each and every day. The world is a much different place now than it was in 1787, and I think the laws of the land should be changed from time to time to reflect that. Yet, of the 27 amendments, just five have come in the last 50 years.
Do you think the document that governs the laws in America should be updated and revised more often to reflect what society is currently like, or do you think something that was written 223 years ago and has been adjusted 27 times since then is perfectly sufficient?
(final thought from a guy who knew how to make a point in a song)
"Come senators and congressmen, please heed the call,
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled,
There's a battle outside and it's raging,
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls,
For the times they are a-changing.
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
Don't criticize what you can't understand,
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand,
For the times they are a-changing."
The Constitution is more of a solid springboard for laws and governorship, rather than something that can just be scratched up and redone.
Demolishing such a relic would bring the American economy and stability into such a downward tailspin.
Sounds strange, perhaps, but change breeds fear and fear breeds chaos.
I guess it doesn't help that my sample size may not even truly be representative of the average American Republican (a lot of the Republicans I know here seem to be competing amongst themselves with regards to just how far right they can go lol).
I also didn't mean that it should be redone from scratch - I was more referring to it being updated and amended more often to keep it current. It kills me to see politicians float ideas to solve current societal problems, and the opposition tries to shoot it down by saying it's unconstitutional - as if a computer-era problem unequivocally has to be solved using pre-typewriter-era laws. I'm not saying it should be scrapped and started anew - you're right, that would screw a lot of things up - I'm just saying I'm in favor of tweaking it a little more often to keep it relevant.
Another question for the right-leaners on this board, again, from the perspective of a foreigner still trying to figure you people out
What do you think of the constitutional amendments? The vibe I get from Republicans down here (in Louisiana) is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that's infallible and should never be changed. The problem I have with that is that the world isn't stopping spinning anytime soon, and society changes and advances a little more each and every day. The world is a much different place now than it was in 1787, and I think the laws of the land should be changed from time to time to reflect that. Yet, of the 27 amendments, just five have come in the last 50 years.
Do you think the document that governs the laws in America should be updated and revised more often to reflect what society is currently like, or do you think something that was written 223 years ago and has been adjusted 27 times since then is perfectly sufficient?
(final thought from a guy who knew how to make a point in a song)
"Come senators and congressmen, please heed the call,
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled,
There's a battle outside and it's raging,
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls,
For the times they are a-changing.
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
Don't criticize what you can't understand,
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand,
For the times they are a-changing."
...
The Constitution is living document... created to change with the changing times.
Case in point:
Ever wonder why "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." is ranked Thrid in the Amendments?
It's because in the mid to late 1700s, the British Army could take over farms and use its resources for their troops.
It was important back in 1770.... what about today? Not so much, but it still protects us from our army taking over our homes for their barracks.
And the amendment process is built in to allow our nation to adapt to change... abolishing slavery... granting voting rights to women and, later, 18-20 year olds.
The Constitution grants Rights, does not restrict them. So, when I hear people wanting to change the Constitution to cover something such as flag burning... I think, they need to get a better understanding of our government.
Post edited by Cosmo on
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Another question for the right-leaners on this board, again, from the perspective of a foreigner still trying to figure you people out
What do you think of the constitutional amendments? The vibe I get from Republicans down here (in Louisiana) is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that's infallible and should never be changed. The problem I have with that is that the world isn't stopping spinning anytime soon, and society changes and advances a little more each and every day. The world is a much different place now than it was in 1787, and I think the laws of the land should be changed from time to time to reflect that. Yet, of the 27 amendments, just five have come in the last 50 years.
Do you think the document that governs the laws in America should be updated and revised more often to reflect what society is currently like, or do you think something that was written 223 years ago and has been adjusted 27 times since then is perfectly sufficient?
(final thought from a guy who knew how to make a point in a song)
"Come senators and congressmen, please heed the call,
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled,
There's a battle outside and it's raging,
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls,
For the times they are a-changing.
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
Don't criticize what you can't understand,
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand,
For the times they are a-changing."
The Constitution is more of a solid springboard for laws and governorship, rather than something that can just be scratched up and redone.
Demolishing such a relic would bring the American economy and stability into such a downward tailspin.
Sounds strange, perhaps, but change breeds fear and fear breeds chaos.
I guess it doesn't help that my sample size may not even truly be representative of the average American Republican (a lot of the Republicans I know here seem to be competing amongst themselves with regards to just how far right they can go lol).
I also didn't mean that it should be redone from scratch - I was more referring to it being updated and amended more often to keep it current. It kills me to see politicians float ideas to solve current societal problems, and the opposition tries to shoot it down by saying it's unconstitutional - as if a computer-era problem unequivocally has to be solved using pre-typewriter-era laws. I'm not saying it should be scrapped and started anew - you're right, that would screw a lot of things up - I'm just saying I'm in favor of tweaking it a little more often to keep it relevant.
The constitution is the document that protects the people from the government. If it were easy to change there really wouldnt be any need to have it.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think I am the only conservative PJ fan in the world.
If anyone would like to engage in thoughtful debate with an open-minded conservative PJ fan, please do so.
And to any fellow PJ fans w/ whom I've quarreled on this site, I apologize, and hold no animosity toward you .
Fire away, Libs. (That's said w/ love.)
...
Just a suggestion...
Your moniker give off a less thoughtful, less open-mindedness and more of... well, some one that should be on 'Jersey Shore' with those spiked headed dim-wits. Granted... it fit in perfectly with your initial posts, You sounded just like one of those 'Jersey Shore' guys and the name fit.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
This is a PJ site so I would think many opinions and ideas on here are left leaning, I would agree with BlackRedYellow on that, makes sense. It would be easier to be left or right, but on some issues I am left and on others I roll right. I'm diverse, and we all should be. You limit yourself when you say I am strictly liberal on all subjects, or strictly conservative on all subjects. Extreme liberals like Obama no matter what, and although I voted for him, I am not too thrilled with his presidency so far. Extreme rightists blame environmentalist for the Gulf oil spill, get real!! Every issue is different for me, and it should be that way for everyone.
I can't get past that line about Obama being an extreme liberal... what exactly has he done in a year and a half that was extremely liberal?
He's been basically George W Bush light... He has more humble foreign policy rhetoric, but he has a center-right Sec of State and Defense Secretary.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I can't get past that line about Obama being an extreme liberal... what exactly has he done in a year and a half that was extremely liberal?
He's been basically George W Bush light... He has more humble foreign policy rhetoric, but he has a center-right Sec of State and Defense Secretary.[/quote]
I don't mean Obama is an extreme liberal. I meant extreme liberals "like" as in they adore him, not that he is one. Obama is not an extreme liberal. I say this because I know an extreme liberal who likes (adores, respects, agrees with...) Obama no matter what he does, right or wrong, good or bad, she is always on his side.
I wouldn't say he is a liberal as I agree with you, he hasn't done much to represent that side of the spectrum.
Who the f*ck goes around skinning cats~~Ed
It all comes down to changing your head~~John Lennon
MSG 6-24-08/MSG 5-21-10/Philly MIA 9-2-12/Chicago Wrigley Field 7-19-13/Brooklyn NY 1&2 10-2013/Philly 1&2 10-2013
Comments
real quick- The great strengths of our country are it's natural resources and labor, that is, it's people. The wealth produced and earned in this country is more than many other countries combined- and yet we are in dreadful debt. Because the size of the gov't- not the military- is SO big. (We do have the largest military also, but that's not where all the money goes, despite the two wars and what some people say). The gov't should cut costs in a recession just like all of us have to.
The idea of being able to tell the gov't how to spend my tax dollars is Utopian- meaning I wish I could do that!!
The only way we can do that now is vote them out if we don't like it, and vote them in if we do.
Until tomorrow friends.....
I couldn't agree more.
But Im operating in a liberal environment here, and honestly, I'd settle for scaling back to state level from where we are, and call it a victory.
But are you for NO law? Anywhere? After all, nothing can be both legal, and illegal. It has to be something, at some level- I'll take the state, unless you want abortion, pot, education, etc, to all be decided at the neighborhood level.... that's a lot of voting.
you cant claim to be for smaller federal government and the constitution and then be ok with the way it (and the arizona law) completely ignores basic civil rights and our protections against warrantless search and seizure as provided for by the constitution.
this is the problem with the whole left/right conservative/liberal bullshit. its nothing more than a collection of arbitrary beliefs designed to keep the two party system going. both sides pick and choose which parts of the constitution they want to keep and which rights they decide to grant us.
the true spectrum isnt based on liberalism/conservatism but on a combination of anarchism<->totalitarianism (authority scale) and libertarianism<->collectivism (economy scale).
most people are too lazy to really decide what their beliefs are and accept whatever they are told to think, even if some of their stances on the issues are completely contradictory to each other.
get rid of these stupid labels!
I know I am definitely in the minority here in America on this subject, but the entire concept of state's rights seems... well... wrong to me. At the end of the day, a person from Arizona is just as much of an American as a person from Alaska - it seems odd that one group of Americans should demand the right to live by different laws based solely on arbitrary geographical boundaries. On top of that, I am DEFINITELY against state's rights when it is used as an excuse to defend prejudice. A particular state shouldn't be given the legal right to discriminate against minorities (whether they're of the sexual or racial nature) simply because that particular state wants to live in the 1800s. Sometimes the federal government needs to step in and kick some ass if it's in the name of promoting equality and common sense. A person shouldn't have to move away from their home and live in a different state just to get equal rights - nobody gets a say in what color skin they have or what type of person they're attracted to, so why should a state be given the right to discriminate against them because they find certain minorities "icky?"
Best on the web - check them out
http://www.youtube.com/user/cantkeepmehere
<left><a href='http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4676758738_20a07ec4f1_m.jpg/'><img src='http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4676758738_20a07ec4f1_m.jpg' border='0' alt='Image Hosted by flickr.com'/></a><br/>
</left>
2008 Bonnaroo - 2009 Philly 2&3 - 2010 MSG 1&2
Small Government: So like how is it not BIG Government that you want states to decide. California is a pretty dang big government, bigger than the entire UK and has more people than Canada. Shouldn't everything actually come down to local ordinances at the city level? The folks who live in Austin would probably vote for a different set of laws than the larger Texas population, no? Maybe even home rule for neighborhoods, since (for example) what's good for Cleveland's University Circle neighborhood is not so good for Hough or Collinwood.
Low Taxes: The people that lead the Conservative party (since 1973-ish) do much worse at lowering the national debt than the Democrats. They increase spending and then lower taxes, running up debt which as you said puts the burden on your grandchildren. Republicans deride Democrats as "tax-and-spend" while in reality the Republicans practice "print and spend"!
Personal Life: The Left is actually the side that wants to let people do as they wish. Take your pick of issues that people can rightfully disagree on, the Right want everyone to conform to their version. The left would allow it and people that don't want to do it don't have to. That's what bugs me, the Right acts like we're going to be forced to have gay weddings and do drugs and drive Smartcars, when actually the Left wants to let people do their own thing. The major issue they're opposite on is firearm possession, which admittedly makes me scratch my head, but they have been laying off that for a while.
Now, you can go ahead and say that the Republicans are not truly Conservative and don't represent Conservative views. But in this country, you are either Democratic, Republican, or Not Represented. You can claim all you want to be separate from the Republican party but do the "other side" a favor and recognize that there's a spectrum within that party as well.
When the Republicans are spending money like it's water, forcing their specific values down other people's throats, and expanding the role of the Feds, it's pretty easy to see why thinking people react negatively. And the Internet has a pretty large faction of people who like to learn and discuss things rather than just nod and go with what was right for their parents.
Which conservative government actually enacted all of these pillars ?
I believe these parties could actually work together on a consensus unlike the two current parties in charge.
I'm probably a hybrid of these BTW.
Isn't that an oxymoron? I thought everything is black and white with conservatives.
Actually I am for big government on all levels. I would rather have all of my basic needs met and be taxed, then none of them and have a few more dollars to piss away. But then I also have personal viewpoints towards many things that actually differ from my political viewpoints towards them (see also abortion).
I just feel being educated and objective towards a particular viewpoint is important before making a decision, but its also quite important to remember i am not the only person in this great country.
Thats basically why i vote Democrat instead of Green Party
You need to include the definition for him
both parties are extremely hypocritical.
You need to include the definition for him
a pimple-faced dumbass?
What do you think of the constitutional amendments? The vibe I get from Republicans down here (in Louisiana) is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that's infallible and should never be changed. The problem I have with that is that the world isn't stopping spinning anytime soon, and society changes and advances a little more each and every day. The world is a much different place now than it was in 1787, and I think the laws of the land should be changed from time to time to reflect that. Yet, of the 27 amendments, just five have come in the last 50 years.
Do you think the document that governs the laws in America should be updated and revised more often to reflect what society is currently like, or do you think something that was written 223 years ago and has been adjusted 27 times since then is perfectly sufficient?
(final thought from a guy who knew how to make a point in a song)
"Come senators and congressmen, please heed the call,
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled,
There's a battle outside and it's raging,
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls,
For the times they are a-changing.
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
Don't criticize what you can't understand,
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand,
For the times they are a-changing."
The Constitution is more of a solid springboard for laws and governorship, rather than something that can just be scratched up and redone.
Demolishing such a relic would bring the American economy and stability into such a downward tailspin.
Sounds strange, perhaps, but change breeds fear and fear breeds chaos.
Take a look at this...
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
This is the Federal Budget for FY 2009. (Go to page 55 for the layout of expenditures.)
Where would you cut the spending?
Hail, Hail!!!
but whatever is decided on should be followed. without it, there is no real contract with the government.
it isn't so offensive to me, but it makes it hard to help out in a thread where someone is being ganged up on.
No worries, I think that most on here would put me in the category of conservative, even thoughI would not label myself that way. I think there are plenty on here too, you will see them soon enough. I used to think the same thing you did, but I think the discussions in here are represented pretty fairly.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I guess it doesn't help that my sample size may not even truly be representative of the average American Republican (a lot of the Republicans I know here seem to be competing amongst themselves with regards to just how far right they can go lol).
I also didn't mean that it should be redone from scratch - I was more referring to it being updated and amended more often to keep it current. It kills me to see politicians float ideas to solve current societal problems, and the opposition tries to shoot it down by saying it's unconstitutional - as if a computer-era problem unequivocally has to be solved using pre-typewriter-era laws. I'm not saying it should be scrapped and started anew - you're right, that would screw a lot of things up - I'm just saying I'm in favor of tweaking it a little more often to keep it relevant.
The Constitution is living document... created to change with the changing times.
Case in point:
Ever wonder why "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." is ranked Thrid in the Amendments?
It's because in the mid to late 1700s, the British Army could take over farms and use its resources for their troops.
It was important back in 1770.... what about today? Not so much, but it still protects us from our army taking over our homes for their barracks.
And the amendment process is built in to allow our nation to adapt to change... abolishing slavery... granting voting rights to women and, later, 18-20 year olds.
The Constitution grants Rights, does not restrict them. So, when I hear people wanting to change the Constitution to cover something such as flag burning... I think, they need to get a better understanding of our government.
Hail, Hail!!!
The constitution is the document that protects the people from the government. If it were easy to change there really wouldnt be any need to have it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Just a suggestion...
Your moniker give off a less thoughtful, less open-mindedness and more of... well, some one that should be on 'Jersey Shore' with those spiked headed dim-wits. Granted... it fit in perfectly with your initial posts, You sounded just like one of those 'Jersey Shore' guys and the name fit.
Hail, Hail!!!
I can't get past that line about Obama being an extreme liberal... what exactly has he done in a year and a half that was extremely liberal?
He's been basically George W Bush light... He has more humble foreign policy rhetoric, but he has a center-right Sec of State and Defense Secretary.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
He's been basically George W Bush light... He has more humble foreign policy rhetoric, but he has a center-right Sec of State and Defense Secretary.[/quote]
I don't mean Obama is an extreme liberal. I meant extreme liberals "like" as in they adore him, not that he is one. Obama is not an extreme liberal. I say this because I know an extreme liberal who likes (adores, respects, agrees with...) Obama no matter what he does, right or wrong, good or bad, she is always on his side.
I wouldn't say he is a liberal as I agree with you, he hasn't done much to represent that side of the spectrum.
It all comes down to changing your head~~John Lennon
MSG 6-24-08/MSG 5-21-10/Philly MIA 9-2-12/Chicago Wrigley Field 7-19-13/Brooklyn NY 1&2 10-2013/Philly 1&2 10-2013