John King probably got fired that day for telling the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgCEZwrc1o8
Printable View
John King probably got fired that day for telling the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgCEZwrc1o8
I follow world politics and would be extremely uncomfortable if he ever gained any more power than he holds now.
Ron Paul? I'm afraid the guy you want to be worried about is Rick Santorum who wants to post-event forcibly divorce all same-sex married couples in America. Sanctity of marriage my ass. That and overriding individual state law at a federal level.
Oh indeed, I mean a Ron Paul presidency would be just awful - I mean just think of the horrors it would hold? policies like no more foreign wars, only spending what you have to avoid going bankrupt, following the constitution and and allowing states rights, having a strong Dollar backed by gold as opposed to paper which will lead to its eventual collapse, allowing a free internet .... all very, very uncomfortable stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdna
The current president? spends like crazy (Greece anyone?), invades foreign countries without the permission of Congress like an imperial monarch, prints the U.S. Dollar into the ground, ignores the constitution and has the federal government intrude on the rights of states which the founding fathers warned against, carries out hit missions overseas (er, trial by jury?), attempts to censor the internet + many more.
If you find Ron Paul uncomfortable then you are utterly insane, there is no other word for it.
No, darling. That means that I have different political views from you. Sometimes it is essential to open your eyes to the fact that there may be people who disagree with you, especially on politics. You have a wonderful day, now!Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Way to back up your view! 'its my opinion' & 'people disagree with you' - wow really!?Quote:
Originally Posted by mdna
I mean it wasn't as though I was asking why Ron Paul is 'uncomfortable' and you've failed to answer, no, of course not.
Lets take a look here
Ron Paul does not support being the world police, does not support NDAA, Patriot Act, and the war on drugs. The rest of thecandidatessupport pretty much everything i mentioned. Do we really need the Patriot Act? It was supposed to be gone shortly after 9/11 happened but guess what? We still have that. NDAA is some corrupted crap where you can arrest citizens without a trial and place them in FEMA Camps. I'm sure the government in the current state with itscorruption would just label people as "terrorists" as an excuse to arrest them with NDAA law.
It's really interesting. The Convention will be a blood bath and potentially people will be shocked when they find out Paul's true delegate count.It will be one interesting Convention full of political maneuvering and attempts to forge alliances.
Rumours are even spreading that they could unite over a more friendly candidate to the Republican centre such as Jeb Bush (Oh, God!)
Although he is insane to not support separation of the church and the state, it's simply unconstitutional.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Other than that and a couple of minor nags he's an awesome guy.
There's some ideas a lot of people don't agree with on him, but hopefully we can all agree that he's a heck of a lot better than the other candidates running for president!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
I agree that there are varying degrees of positivity in the Republican Party and it is interesting to follow the primaries to see how they fare for the Republican nomination but more than anything I would be much happier to see Obama do a second term. I don't blame the whole of America, though, for their past problems with Republicans. Even my own country elected a very displeasing leader - Sarkozy.
If Romney, Santorum or Gingrich replaced Obama, what would change?Quote:
Originally Posted by jasey
The same as, whats changed since Obama replaced Bush?
They're all puppets on strings, and corrupted congress doesn't really make things any better. What has Obama done to make this country better? Signing NDAA was pure corruption, he didn't have to sign it but he probably had no clue what it was and just signed it figuring it would do the country better. Bush wasn't any better than Obama was. Do you guys remember hurricane Katrina? Shouldn't blame it all on bush, but more the government, but the media made it look like it was a regular evacuation right? What the government really did was go to house to house breaking and entering and taking away everyones firearms and disarming them which violates the 2nd amendment of the constitution. The bad part was nobody ever got their guns back after the "Evacuation" that was done.
http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by FiftyCal
Also that policy made complete sense, the city was being abandoned, you don't leave firearms just sitting around for robbers/looters to have at will. And yes, quite a few guns were returned, in 2006, as documented by the bastion of liberalism at Fox News.
Facts can be a real pain sometimes.
So it makes sense to take away peoples protection so looters don't get a hold of it while violating your constitutional rights? Well if a looter came to your house while you have no protection, what do you do? Criminals take even more advantage of situations like this where people have no protections for their family at all, And by the article looks like didn't return guns until quite a few groups got mad and sued the city. I'm sure they would of held on to the guns had it not been for groups like National Rifle Association that are pro 2nd AmendmentQuote:
Originally Posted by nvrspk4
Why Romney? Why Sarkozy? Why Putin?
I really do not Romney sitting in the chair as the president of the united states, ever.
There was a state of absolutely lawlessness in the aftermath of Katrina and the government's first responsibility is to establish order. Therefore it made sense in that state of emergency to confiscate all guns. They did not have the right to keep the weapons after the emergency as the court decided. The police accompanied the confiscation of guns with increased enforcement - there were reduced reports of lootings, you're not hearing about people who had their guns confiscated and were killed are you? The way they took care of the lawlessness was by confiscating nearly every gun they could, and it made sense because of the state of emergency. Yes, it was wrong that they didn't move aggressively to return them after the emergency, but it was recognized by a court that that should happen, and the police did comply with the rule of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by FiftyCal
The majority of the 'good things' listed on there are either government handouts, increased government or pandering 'equality' legislation which threatens the legal system along with free speech just as it has here in the United Kingdom by treating people in groups as opposed to individuals equal before the law. But what has Obama done? mainly the same as George W. Bush in that both increased government, both dabbled in government handouts (to both big business and as a tool for securing votes and creating a welfare dependent class of people) along with both ignoring the U.S. constitution in general, which brings me onto..Quote:
Originally Posted by nvrspk4
That is complete nonsense, by that logic we would simply have to confiscate 'all' guns and nobody would ever commit crime and we'd all be free from lawlessness, right? confiscating guns from households merely removes firearms from those with good intentions and leaves those with bad intentions with the guns as they naturally won't hand over their guns. The confiscation of all firearms during Katrina broke the law in two ways as I see it (no, I care not for what courts say as if courts really upheld the constitution and the law then the vast amount of the Congress, Senate and the President would have been impeached long ago with many going to prison) - firstly in that it breaks the Second Amendment and secondly because it ignores innocent until proven guilty in regards to 'unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home' - if I have not been proven guilty of anything in regards to being a part of a militia then the Police have no right to remove my Second Amendment rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by nvrspk4
That is common law and the U.S. constitution, whether you value these things of course is another matter altogther.
Treating people as groups recognizes the reality of the situation, which is that we as a people do recognize the groups. One may argue that this is reinforced by the policies of the government, while others would retort that the government policies are so because we act in this way. Either way, it is absolutely true that there is a measure of inequality in the system and the government should certainly reinforce it. For example, do you think that eliminating "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was pandering? Reversal of the Global Gag rule? Improving media coverage of government events? Removing the restriction on Federal Funding for stem cell research? Tax cuts for small business? Lifting restrictions on Cuban visitation? Other stuff: Adding tools to allow for tracking of government spending on stimulus projects. The START treaty. All awful, right? Pandering, the lot of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
That is also complete nonsense, the distinction between an emergency situation paired with a state of lawlessness and everyday life is clear. There were significant problems with looting and unsecured firearms and thus the guns were confiscated due to a state of emergency. The imposition of martial law is appropriate at times, as Abraham Lincoln showed. It is easy to argue against with slippery-slope logic or even a consistent moral argument. However a consistent moral argument is always flawed in some degree, and a stubborn adherence to principle at the cost of all else has been proven to prescribe poor policy that ignores the realities of our world (which is pretty much the same argument we have on group-based policymaking.)Quote:
That is complete nonsense, by that logic we would simply have to confiscate 'all' guns and nobody would ever commit crime and we'd all be free from lawlessness, right? confiscating guns from households merely removes firearms from those with good intentions and leaves those with bad intentions with the guns as they naturally won't hand over their guns. The confiscation of all firearms during Katrina broke the law in two ways as I see it (no, I care not for what courts say as if courts really upheld the constitution and the law then the vast amount of the Congress, Senate and the President would have been impeached long ago with many going to prison) - firstly in that it breaks the Second Amendment and secondly because it ignores innocent until proven guilty in regards to 'unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home' - if I have not been proven guilty of anything in regards to being a part of a militia then the Police have no right to remove my Second Amendment rights.
That is common law and the U.S. constitution, whether you value these things of course is another matter altogther.
Your principle argument is solid, however my logic is based more in what is a better way to govern. Should we govern in a way that is entirely consistent with a single brand of ideology, or should we brand in a common sense way, adhering to morals whenever possible but also making concessions that our world is not perfect and at times we should make concessions in order to obtain outcomes that are thought of as good by the majority of people?
I'd want Ron Paul president, as you compare Obama to Paul & he's a completely different animal, and yeah Rick Santorum is just bad, just gotta read some of his policies really...
i think mitt romney is a monster of the republican canidates definitely dont want him as president. I would just love to see a debate Paul Vs Obama.