All new accounts must be activated. PM Kathryn to request a new account activation.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2012 Elections
12-30-2011, 08:34 AM
Post: #41
RE: 2012 Elections
Our congress sickens me...they thwart our President every step of the way..why?? In the name of making him fail. Not for ANY other reason.
FOR SHAME

You see...the idea of Government being a bad thing has gotten so skewed. It's supposed to be BY us and FOR us.

I am not impressed with Ron Paul at all. He's not for women's right, gays, the environment...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/...-for-paul/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-30-2011, 01:46 PM
Post: #42
RE: 2012 Elections
The last thing we need is fiscal conservatives in charge. I agree that Ron Paul is the best out of the Republican candidates, but we need someone like Bill Clinton back in office. When Bill Clinton was President, the economy flourished.

[Image: 2irru4n.jpg]
{c} michelle.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-31-2011, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 12-31-2011 07:29 AM by Fruitfly.)
Post: #43
RE: 2012 Elections
(12-30-2011 08:34 AM)cosmic bliss Wrote:  http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/...-for-paul/

Don't think for a minute that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans. "A nation divided against itself cannot stand." As long as Congress and the talking heads divide the people against each other, then they can remain in power and get rich. So long as the left hand and the right hand hate each other, and the left and right brain and leg, then a person is split and can do nothing.

I looked at your page and read some of those bills. Here is some recent information:

Keep in mind that Paul is against any federal interference that is not expressly dictated in the Constitution. In other words, if it's not in the Constitution, then it falls to state jurisdiction and State Government. That doesn't mean he likes or dislikes bills; it means he thinks government should stop legislating morality in all cases. That said, here ya go:

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[199] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[200] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage. [201] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[202][203] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[202]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".[147] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.

Ultimately, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", on May 27, 2010.[204] He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.

I can do this with each point that guy made and in each case you'll see it's a matter of the federal government overstepping its bounds, legislating morality when it has no constitutional right. In fact, the legislation of morality is what led to all these problems in the first case. Basically, what Paul is doing is getting rid of the Wizard behind the curtain and letting the states decide, even when it comes to drugs.

"
States' rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution."[206]
(12-30-2011 01:46 PM)mirandagirl Wrote:  I agree that Ron Paul is the best out of the Republican candidates, but we need someone like Bill Clinton back in office. When Bill Clinton was President, the economy flourished.

Then you should buy Bill Clinton's book and watch his interview on the O'Reilly Factor (am not a fan of O'Reilly, but am with the parents, so).
He makes a great deal of sense, and his plans to get us out of debt are similar to Newt's plans. In other words, I don't disagree with you.

Interestingly, when asked about the current president, Mr. Clinton sidestepped the topic with all the grace of a ballet dancer. Its clear by what he didn't say what he really thinks.

Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary competencies that daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become. CS Lewis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-31-2011, 10:44 AM
Post: #44
RE: 2012 Elections
Bill Clinton's wife is Secretary of State for the current president, so of course, he's not going to say anything negative about him.

[Image: 2irru4n.jpg]
{c} michelle.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-31-2011, 05:53 PM
Post: #45
RE: 2012 Elections
(12-31-2011 10:44 AM)mirandagirl Wrote:  Bill Clinton's wife is Secretary of State for the current president, so of course, he's not going to say anything negative about him.

I actually like Hillary. There is talk that she might replace Obama. If so, I'll really be torn between Paul and Clinton cos I like both.

Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary competencies that daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become. CS Lewis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-31-2011, 06:54 PM
Post: #46
RE: 2012 Elections
If we could have the country run by the Clinton's, then I think we'd be in good shape.

[Image: 2irru4n.jpg]
{c} michelle.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2012, 04:04 PM
Post: #47
RE: 2012 Elections
Clinton was a good president and congress had a lot to do with it.

As long as you have a bickering congress it doesn't matter who's president because bills will go nowhere.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2012, 04:20 PM
Post: #48
RE: 2012 Elections
(01-07-2012 04:04 PM)toriwesley Wrote:  Clinton was a good president and congress had a lot to do with it.

As long as you have a bickering congress it doesn't matter who's president because bills will go nowhere.

Agreed.

[Image: 2irru4n.jpg]
{c} michelle.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 09:16 AM
Post: #49
RE: 2012 Elections
(12-31-2011 07:22 AM)Fruitfly Wrote:  
(12-30-2011 08:34 AM)cosmic bliss Wrote:  http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/...-for-paul/

Don't think for a minute that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans. "A nation divided against itself cannot stand." As long as Congress and the talking heads divide the people against each other, then they can remain in power and get rich. So long as the left hand and the right hand hate each other, and the left and right brain and leg, then a person is split and can do nothing.

I looked at your page and read some of those bills. Here is some recent information:

Keep in mind that Paul is against any federal interference that is not expressly dictated in the Constitution. In other words, if it's not in the Constitution, then it falls to state jurisdiction and State Government. That doesn't mean he likes or dislikes bills; it means he thinks government should stop legislating morality in all cases. That said, here ya go:

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[199] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[200] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage. [201] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[202][203] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[202]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".[147] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.

Ultimately, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", on May 27, 2010.[204] He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.

I can do this with each point that guy made and in each case you'll see it's a matter of the federal government overstepping its bounds, legislating morality when it has no constitutional right. In fact, the legislation of morality is what led to all these problems in the first case. Basically, what Paul is doing is getting rid of the Wizard behind the curtain and letting the states decide, even when it comes to drugs.

"
States' rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution."[206]
(12-30-2011 01:46 PM)mirandagirl Wrote:  I agree that Ron Paul is the best out of the Republican candidates, but we need someone like Bill Clinton back in office. When Bill Clinton was President, the economy flourished.

Then you should buy Bill Clinton's book and watch his interview on the O'Reilly Factor (am not a fan of O'Reilly, but am with the parents, so).
He makes a great deal of sense, and his plans to get us out of debt are similar to Newt's plans. In other words, I don't disagree with you.

Interestingly, when asked about the current president, Mr. Clinton sidestepped the topic with all the grace of a ballet dancer. Its clear by what he didn't say what he really thinks.

"Don't think for a minute that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans. "A nation divided against itself cannot stand." As long as Congress and the talking heads divide the people against each other, then they can remain in power and get rich. So long as the left hand and the right hand hate each other, and the left and right brain and leg, then a person is split and can do nothing."

Yes, that is exactly what I've said.


I do not buy what he's selling. Everything for profit? Healthcare/school?? Privatize, privatize, privatize. I'm living the tea party politics right now in the town I live in with them systematically trying to destroy the teacher's union.

and he's not pro-choice?

You'll see.

Divided we FALL
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 10:27 AM
Post: #50
RE: 2012 Elections
Well, I think Ron Paul is out, so I'm going to write in Lady Gaga for president and Adam Lambert for vice-president; at least they'll entertain us while the US goes bankrupt, China comes to claim land in lieu of all the money we owe them, and we are overtaken by outsiders.

By the way, I support both the tea party and the occupy wall street movement because, while they differ in political aims, both exist outside of their ascribed party.

What I want you to notice, however, is how cunning and crafty those in power are, for no sooner did these grassroots organizations emerge than the media started labeling them republican or democrat oriented, because by ascribing them a party affiliation, they ceased to become "grassroots" and became "factions" of a particular party.

Once they became factions, they became part of the political system, another iteration or repetition of the two-party system on a microcosmic level. (A knowledge of Derrida and Foucault French philosophy might be required to understand exactly what this means.)

They no longer exist outside the system.

The demonization of both occupy and tea party movements is absolutely requisite to ensure the division necessary for the corrupt to remain in power. Thus, both became targets of political and media hostility. A concentrated hatred for the Other is required to maintain the chasm.

The truth is "All republicans / conservatives are evil" is a logical fallacy, just like the statement "All democrats / liberals are evil" is a logical fallacy. We must learn to put ourselves in the shoes of the other, to embody the other's position, and that way we can learn empathy and sympathy for the other, and develop diplomacy.

As for healthcare, young people can only see their position, which is the lack of affordable healthcare. But my dad is in the hospital right now undergoing ablation surgery, to stop his heart and start it up again, to fix a severe arrhythmia problem. It took three months under an HMO to get him an appointment. In socialized medicine, he's probably be dead already.

So, old people can't understand young people need affordable healthcare, and young people can't understand that old people don't want to die. (My French professor is from France and told me some horror stories about her father and their socialized medical system.)

I am the only person I know who understands both sides, feels both sides, who doesn't want my father or my French professor or her husband to die, and at the same time feels the medical community's arbitrary assignment of capital to medical procedures is full of egocentric entitlement and greed.

We can't limit costs though, cos doctors will pick up and move to a country where they can charge out their arse.

But this healthcare bill is full of problems that will put old people at risk, and a great deal of that is because corrupt, narcissistic people cannot make right choices about people's lives, because their self-centeredness and political ambitions drive their demands, not an earnest concern for the welfare of both the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, for the widow and the orphan, the gay and the straight, the old and the young, for all people everywhere, no matter who they are.

That said, we need a basic healthcare plan so those who cannot afford it can still have it, and those with pre-existing conditions like diabetes, cancer, etc aren't thrown out to die because the HMO only wants to ensure healthy people.

I know there is an answer, but I also know it isn't going to happen with today's politicians. In the future, one or two things is going to happen, a second American revolution like the French revolution where the gov't is toppled, or foreign invasion and takeover. We won't keep going like we're going.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)