I honestly hope someone like Bachmann or Paul wins the nomination... they do not stand a chance against Obama in the long run.
Let us not forget that Obama is a fucking political campaign MACHINE and he has barely started as of yet.
[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;31933167]I think that's mostly because a large amount of politics nowadays is just the Repubs mud-slinging unbased shit at Obama instead of passing bills.[/QUOTE]
There certainly is a lot of ass in the political right wing machine in America. It feels like they aren't meant to be taken seriously sometimes.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31942447]Yeah, as if any of the GOP regulars would do an even [I]slightly[/I] better job.[/QUOTE]
I believe they would.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;31944290]I believe they would.[/QUOTE]
then you're almost as delusional as the gop loony toons yourself
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;31937693]he was shit and you're an awful person for remotely thinking he did anything worthwhile
[editline]25th August 2011[/editline]
"let the states decide!~"
lmao states rights over human rights[/QUOTE]
The government shouldn't be involved in marriage or abortion rights at all. Those are entirely religious moral standings.
[editline]25th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;31941968]Because that totally happened with John McCain.
Oh wait, it didn't, he completely lost his soul and is now a complete republican zombie.[/QUOTE]
Except he supports amnesty and illegal immigration and government healthcare when it suits him.
He's a waffle, that's its.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31944522]The government shouldn't be involved in marriage or abortion rights at all. Those are entirely religious moral standings.[/QUOTE]
So what does that leave abortion law? Legal? Illegal? Determined by churches? I'm sorry but it isn't solely a religious issue. It's a political one and it's fucking stupid to call it a religious one.
I know people opposed to it that aren't the least bit religious and I know some religious people who would accept it's legality. It's a political argument and issue because it affects everyone that wants control of their own body and their own life.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31944522]The government shouldn't be involved in marriage or abortion rights at all. Those are entirely religious moral standings.[/QUOTE]
Okay so then you agree it should be up to the person in question? That would mean abortion and gay marriage would be legal on a federal level. Cool.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31944522]The government shouldn't be involved in marriage or abortion rights at all. Those are entirely religious moral standings.[/QUOTE]
no religion doesn't decide human rights. as long as marriage has legal connotations attached it should be controlled by the government. saying that abortion rights should be decided on religious or moral grounds is just plain retarded.
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;31944290]I believe they would.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1120119-Are-earthquakes-tsunamis-and-hurricanes-signs-of-the-apocalypse-Michelle-Bachmann-thinks-so%21[/url]
yeah, sure she seems like she's fit for this
Romney's moderate but as much in the pocket of business as anyone else and still not much better than anyone else.
Ron Paul just wants to let the states handle social issues and deregulate to the point of "perfection".
And Parry is just an over zealous overly religious bad governor who would be a shittier president
I rather got to Mexico than Canada. But they speak english in Canada, so that is a plus for them
[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;31944290]I believe they would.[/QUOTE]
What do you believe Bachmann, Perry, or Romney would do better than Obama?
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;31939828]i don't care what party is in power, human rights shouldn't be left up to a state willy-nilly because all that's going to happen is people getting screwed over[/QUOTE]
I really don't understand how anyone can argue in favour of giving an imaginary plot of land rights before giving equal rights to their fellow man
It's either stupidity or malice, which is it conservatives
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31945918]I really don't understand how anyone can argue in favour of giving an imaginary plot of land rights before giving equal rights to their fellow man
It's either stupidity or malice, which is it conservatives[/QUOTE]
but s0beit will come and tell you it's about federal government getting out of the way!!
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31946151]but s0beit will come and tell you it's about federal government getting out of the way!![/QUOTE]
That's like being the conductor of a train, seeing people on the tracks ahead, and instead of braking jumping out because you don't want to be in the way
another thing i don't understand, is that so many people complain that obama did nothing or does nothing whatever, yet they want ron paul as president when he just says he'll leave everything up to the states, and they actually want him as president BECAUSE of that???
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;31944606]Okay so then you agree it should be up to the person in question? That would mean abortion and gay marriage would be legal on a federal level. Cool.[/QUOTE]
I've always said that. As far as I'm concerned, you can marry who or whatever you want, as many as you want. If it doesn't affect me, personally, then go for it.
[editline]25th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;31946992]another thing i don't understand, is that so many people complain that obama did nothing or does nothing whatever, yet they want ron paul as president when he just says he'll leave everything up to the states, and they actually want him as president BECAUSE of that???[/QUOTE]
I think Ron Paul's stance goes back to the Constitution saying the federal government only serves to protect the states from invasion and other things explicitly outlined in the Constitution. And the 10th Amendment says that what powers are not granted to the federal government in that piece of paper, are left to the states to sort out on their own, because they will better know what suits the people in that area. And I agree with that. The larger an area a government covers, the less effective it is, because it's passing single laws that can have wildly different effects on various regions of the US. A law regarding crab fishing wont make sense in Kansas, just like a law about freedoms wont make sense in Chicago.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31947174]I think Ron Paul's stance goes back to the Constitution saying the federal government only serves to protect the states from invasion and other things explicitly outlined in the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm just going to tell you right now this is going to fuck over the poor, because you had better believe some states are going to get rid of welfare and Social Security, if they even came into existence in this hypothetical scenario.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31947451]Yeah, I'm just going to tell you right now this is going to fuck over the poor, because you had better believe some states are going to get rid of welfare and Social Security, if they even came into existence in this hypothetical scenario.[/QUOTE]
Smaller federal government = smaller taxes, which allows states to ramp up their tax rates to match, so they can fund the programs themselves, and with more direct oversight to prevent fraud and waste.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31947544]Smaller federal government = smaller taxes, which allows states to ramp up their tax rates to match, so they can fund the programs themselves, and with more direct oversight to prevent fraud and waste.[/QUOTE]
And if some governor like Rick Perry wants to get rid of it altogether, then that's okay?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31947558]And if some governor like Rick Perry wants to get rid of it altogether, then that's okay?[/QUOTE]
Gee, if only the people could vote on tax matters or change their leadership if they didn't like the current one.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31947677]Gee, if only the people could vote on tax matters or change their leadership if they didn't like the current one.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and even in the case of governors like this (let's take Scott Walker for example) the bills still pass and are in effect for longer than they should be. I fail to see how this is any better than a federal system of regulating things like worker's rights and civil rights to ensure it's fair.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31947544]Smaller federal government = smaller taxes, which allows states to ramp up their tax rates to match, so they can fund the programs themselves, and with more direct oversight to prevent fraud and waste.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that people will be more easily tricked into removing their own welfare and benefits because of God and the threat of commies. Just imagine what would happen if Texas decided their own shit... Already Abortion bills are being passed like crazy in state congress... it is very scary. In some areas, abortion is all but illegal.
"States Rights" is a very, very old issue that stems from the horrible fear of strong federal government that many early Americans had as a result of recently breaking away from the British empire, an act that was largely motivated by the growing presence of Britain's federal government in the colonies during the years leading up to the revolution. The general lack of trust people had towards the federal government manifested itself in several different forms throughout American history, starting with the anti-federalists who opposed the constitution due to it proposing a stronger federal government than what the existing Articles of Confederation had in place, then moving on to the secessionists who argued that state governments had the right to secede from the union, and finally leading to the small-government types we see today.
Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann
All fucking crazy.
I find it both amusing and disturbing that American politics has come down to this, choose the one you hate the least, rather than the one you like the most.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;31931009][img_thumb]http://reinhardkargl.com/iBlog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/dwight-d-eisenhower-circa1956.jpg[/img_thumb]
By and large I think the gigantic military industrial complex is at the root of all our economic and debt problems[/QUOTE]
Blame FDR for that.
Oh America, if one of those 4 nutcases wins, you'll really be the laughing stock of the world.
Letting clinically insane people or religious zealots run your country? The population can't be -that- stupid.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31947677]Gee, if only the people could vote on tax matters or change their leadership if they didn't like the current one.[/QUOTE]
This would be an argument if any major funding decision was voted on directly by the people but it doesn't work that way
A representative democracy doesn't represent the people in many cases, it represents the organizations with the most money
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;31951532]Blame FDR for that.[/QUOTE]
I think that was kinda necessary at the time.
I just saw "Obama dead" and I was like "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
