Julie

Ha !....it's a Sunday picnic right now. Wait until it gets closer to election time. You'll probably be seeing me flex my claws as well. Don't be afraid, put on your boxing gloves and jump on in.

Parihaka

Damn, here's me thinking we were being particularly civil

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

ExNavyAmerican

We can't stop murder, so we might as well just let it go because we don't live in an ideal world? Ironduke, I hate to say it, but I disagree with you.

We did quite well without one. And, yes, why not bring back the tariffs? The US is at a disatvantage in the international market. We ought to make it a bit harder for companies to go over-seas, make cheap crap, and send it back to the US. Also, I would be for a flat sales tax.

What the HELL are you talking about? Do you have stats right at your fingertips? It's my own impression that they also come out intellectually superior. And if by socially retarded you mean not sheep for a future globalized world, the I really don't see the problem.

,

Oh, you do, eh? Like something that isn't murder? If you don't want the baby, put him up for adoption. It's twisted! A woman is raped, is impregnated, and they catch the rapist. We can't execute the rapist for an exremely evil crime, but we can kill the baby for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Do you believe the being pro-murder is libertarian?

How less capable? Less socialized? We did very well without Depts. Of Labor, Education, Homeland Security, HHS, Urban Development, ect. They're completely useless, sponge up huge amounts of money, and proto-socialist bureacracies. You know why we need an income tax right now? Because we have a massive bureacracy that needs to be financed for everying from burecrats (mini-tyrants) to superfluous programs like welfare.

And the crap we use now is just paper. A bit less valuable than gold and silver. I'm not necessarily for or against bring back those standards. But it was abolished by a socialist (FDR).

Ironduke! Never have I seen such weak arguments on your part. The 16th amendment is against the substance that the framers intended for constitution. It would be like banning guns! Is your rationalle that we have to support every constitutional amendment simply because the framers provided for amendments, therefore all amendments must be ok?

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

Stan187

Yup, the only who can see the truth is you. You've really won the argument there, boy howdy.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Ironduke

It's consistent with Article V of the Constitution. The Framers anticipated the need to amend the Constitution, as they realized they were not all-seeing and could not predict the future. They weren't gods. Even if the majority of them would be personally opposed to a particular amendment if they could speak from the grave, they would be forced to acquiesce if the majorities required in Article V were satisfied. They can't, so let's not pretend to know what they'd think as they're quite dead.
Let me rephrase that. We don't live in a fantasy world with milk chocolate rivers swum by children with goody gumdrop smiles.

I've met a few of 'em. Socialization, unfortunately, is necessary.

That's a wrap for the evening... I have better things to do on a Saturday morning... like sleeping.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

ExNavyAmerican

I understand the necessity for amendments. That doesn't mean I agree with all of them; and it certainly doesn't mean that they're all good.

Btw, are you a reconstructionalist by any chance?

Thank God!

A few of them? Is that all of them?

I agree that some socialization is necessary, in very well regulated moderation. But are you saying that parents can't raise their children the way they want to because the world is globalizing? I'm dead set against globalization and we need a president who'll make sure the US isn't globalized.

Ironduke

Off to bed after this post, but every amendment is Constitutional.

I don't know what a reconstructionalist is.

I support the Fred Thompson candidacy as I agree with his policy stands on trade issues. I'm not sure what homeschooling has to do with globalization.

ExNavyAmerican

Didn't say every amendment wasn't. All I said was that they all aren't good (as in good ideas), and I don't agree with all of them. I'm not questioning the idea of constitutional amendments; I question some that were made -like the 16th, the 17th, ect.

One who believes that the constitution was written so that to stay in tune with times; basically, everything in the constitution is relative, according to reconstructionalists. Most reconstructionalists are liberals.

You said:

I said:

The first line in respone to (*)

The rest of my post was in respone to (^)

The impression I got is that you're against homeschooling because of globalization. Many people are because homeschooled kids may be taught in a way that society doesn't agree with, that may disagree with a uniformitarian, socialized, globalized society.

entropy

However I am not an American, I voted for Rudy. I would like to see him as the president of your country. He is a republican, but isn't poisoned by the moral issues such as opposition of gay marriage and stem cell research, issues that I consider foolish for a politician to even say one word about.

__________________
If memory serves...

Cromwell

In the poll I voted Ron Paul even though there isn't a rats Arsed chance in hell he can win. I am an Independent in the States; a Nationalist in the Motherland. I have never had much sympathy with either face of the Demopublican/Republicrat Janis, But I can tell you this: I will be licking stamps until I'm dry in the mouth, answering phones until my ears are ringing, and knocking on doors until my knuckles bleed for the Republicans this election cycle. If the Democrats are victorious in the presidential elections -the death knell of America as we know it will have been sounded.

...and hasn't the Bush family been officially declared an Imperial Dynasty yet?

Ron Paul could probably be elected PM in Britain by a landslide it would seem.

-C

__________________
Paranoia is but a heightened state of awareness.

JAD_333

Smug, as well.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Stan187

Actually, he is oppossed to gay marriage.

temujin77

You mean, now he is, but wasn't, and probably will sway a little before 2008

With this said, however, Rudy still has my vote at this point.

__________________
Pete
World War II Database

entropy

Hmm, I thought he wasn't. I guess that is just to make an impression to the Bible thumpers.


In fact, I am not so well-informed about the candidates. My profile is:

Pro-choice

Pro-Guns

Pro-Jews

Continue war in Iraq but end it as soon as possible

Continue war in Afghanistan

Free health care for those in real need

No mercy for the lazy

What candidate fits the best with me?

Ironduke

That's a matter of opinion, and certainly not fact. And as a matter of opinion, clearly the elected representatives of the people at both the state and national level thought they were good ideas.

The Constitution was written in such a way that it can be amended as needed with the times, and clearly this is something the Founding Fathers wanted.

No, I disagree with homeschooling because children need to socialize with their peers, forge friendships, become acquainted with the opposite sex, and network with other people so they can explore their possibilities for advancement in life. On the other hand, I don't believe homeschooling should be outlawed. At certain ages, the parents ought to be able to choose whether they want to homeschool a child. And as that child matures into a young adult, the child should be allowed to decide how they want to be educated.