What's new
By:

Should Mitt release his tax returns?

Revolution 9 said:
It does seem amusing that republicans often talk about the government forcing them to do things.

If the Democrats were requiring something like this from them you know a lot of them would be crying foul.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Can you imagine if democrats were pushing through, say, required classes and registration before you can own a gun? The right would be going crazy over it.
 
Revolution 9 said:
It does seem amusing that republicans often talk about the government forcing them to do things.

If the Democrats were requiring something like this from them you know a lot of them would be crying foul.
Click to expand...

I am mostly for smaller government but it does have its uses and areas of control. For example: immigration, military, voting integrity, taxes...
 
SaltyDawg said:
So your vision for America is, "Land of the free, as long as you choose to live exactly like me." Got it.

In my vision for America people are free to choose how they want to live (as long as they aren't hurting anyone else) and they don't have to give up any of their own freedoms or rights in the process.
Click to expand...

Both statements are ridiculous. Free to live like me? WTF?

Freedom does not equal do whatever the hell you want. There are some requirements necessary to protect those freedoms for the masses. I never said anyone has to get off their butts, I never said anyone has to work hard .. I only said that if some minimal requirements are necessary to protect the greater good of America, and anyone chooses not to play along, then they shouldn't bitch about the ramifications. In this instance, not being able to vote.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Exactly. Can you imagine if democrats were pushing through, say, required classes and registration before you can own a gun? The right would be going crazy over it.
Click to expand...

I see that as different. That does not determine who our leaders are.

To own a gun you have to go thru background checks already. As you should. To carry a gun on your person I do believe classes in firearm profiency and a license should be required (as already required by most states).

Try again?
 
MoTown16 said:
I don't see what's wrong with requiring ID. You have to provide proof for everything else you do: cash a check, make a credit card purchase, get a library card. Who doesn't have an ID? Probably just the people who are prohibited by law from voting (i.e. non-citizens). This country has always had voter fraud. What was the slogan back in Chicago: "vote early, vote often?" I'm amazed that ID's are not required to vote.
Click to expand...

This is all I've been trying to say, really.
 
northeast said:
More people would vote if we had representation for minority interests.
I'll bet a third of the country thinks both the Republicans and the Democrats do not represent their interests, maybe more.

Give us proportional representation of 3rd parties, (or get rid parties altogether)
Give us a say in the congressmen from the other 49 states that will make all the rules.
Give us a popular vote for Pres.
Nix the gerrymandering.
Nix the Fed, it does not represent the interests of people.
Fix the supreme court.
Nix the lobbyists.
Get corporations out of politics.

For starters.
Click to expand...

I'd say closer to 2/3rds think they do not represent "us".

Yes
No, stupid
Yes
Yes
Yes
How?
Getting rid of lobbyists and gerymandering does that. Redundant.
 
Stoked said:
I believe he did so I think he should have been president. I think he would have been horrible but that is obviously what the most people wanted.
Click to expand...
How can you say that? Gore was %^&$#@ brilliant. He invented the internet and championed the carbon credit scheme. Had he been elected, we'd certainly be free from oil right now and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been completely unnecessary.

""Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as “carbon neutral,” meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by “purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere.”
But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating “global warming,”"

Is that not the absolute definition of brilliance? You push for mandatory enforcement of a new scheme, then set yourself up as the chairman of one of the primary companies that will benefit by said scheme. Then you make payments to that company, but draw a salary well in excess of anything you've paid out. Say what you want about ALGORE, but he's a brilliant man. In fact, I think it just might be Al's luminance that's behind global warming.
 
Last edited:
Stoked said:
I see that as different. That does not determine who our leaders are.

To own a gun you have to go thru background checks already. As you should. To carry a gun on your person I do believe classes in firearm profiency and a license should be required (as already required by most states).

Try again?
Click to expand...
Wrong. Republicans have been fighting background checks on sales from gun shows (and on places like KSL) for a long time now. You only need a background check on certain guns (handguns and assault rifles) even when bought at a gun store.
 
MoTown16 said:
How can you say that? Gore was %^&$#@ brilliant. He invented the internet and championed the carbon credit scheme. Had he been elected, we'd certainly be free from oil right now and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been completely unnecessary.

""Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as “carbon neutral,” meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by “purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere.”
But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating “global warming,”"
Click to expand...

I had my finger on the neg rep button, so hard.. then I kept reading.
 
Stoked said:
I'd say closer to 2/3rds think they do not represent "us".

Yes
No, stupid <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes
Yes
Yes
How?
.
Click to expand...

Congress approval ratings have been in the toilet. A big problem is that every state's reps are most concerned with their own selfish interests, rather than doing what is good for the whole country. This should be addressed somehow.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Wrong. Republicans have been fighting background checks on sales from gun shows (and on places like KSL) for a long time now. You only need a background check on certain guns (handguns and assault rifles) even when bought at a gun store.
Click to expand...

LOL I love you Salty. I am going to start posting like you

Dems have been fighting immigration control and voter ID for decades. They need those votes to secure their positions of power.
 
northeast said:
Congress approval ratings have been in the toilet. A big problem is that every state's reps are most concerned with their own selfish interests, rather than doing what is good for the whole country. This should be addressed somehow.
Click to expand...

The representatives represent their area (usually part of a state). Of course they should represent that areas interests. Having a governemt that does not have true area representation of the people loses sight of the people they are supposed to serve. I may be over reading it but are you advocationg the ability of me to run to represent people in Alaska or Ohio when I do not live there? How would I know their needs, concerns...


Note: In what you quoted I was calling that idea stupid not you.
 
Stoked said:
The representatives represent their area (usually part of a state). Of course they should represent that areas interests. Having a governemt that does not have true area representation of the people loses sight of the people they are supposed to serve. I may be over reading it but are you advocationg the ability of me to run to represent people in Alaska or Ohio when I do not live there? How would I know their needs, concerns...


Note: In what you quoted I was calling that idea stupid not you.
Click to expand...

VERY true. I believe in more localized government/representation and less federal oversight except as it relates to things such as Stoked pointed out a few posts back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top