The W
Views: 101455159
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.07 2105
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - GW Bush Stickers Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(1207 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1455/1759
EXP: 4961580
For next: 31290

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1373 days
Last activity: 139 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on 25.11.03 1440.02
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1440.25
I swear to god, is this the Twighlight Zone? Lately it is Republicans spending tax money like there is no tomorrow, and DEMOCRATS complaining that you need to spend money more conservatively, and more wisely.

I am too confused to even participate in this debate. It does demonstrate that in this day and age, it is not what is good for the country, it is what is good for the party. Republicans stealing Democrat issues to try and win centrist votes, and Democrats opposing their own platforms for no other reason than Republicans are proposing them (I have to laugh every time I hear HILLARY come out against the Drug bill) .... Pretty disgusting on both sides of the aisle.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 2518/5405
EXP: 27340707
For next: 512033

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
#22 Posted on 25.11.03 1534.41
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1536.31
See, if all the republicans who are tired of GOP pandering to the middle would go vote Libertarian, and all the lefties who are sick of the Dems changing their stance any way the political wind blows would go vote for the Greens, maybe we'd have some viable alternatives to the two hollow parties we now get to choose from every time. But that's the trump card for the major parties "do you really want to vote your conscience so THE OTHER GUY wins?" and thus we get scared into voting for Gore or Bush or whomever, when we really don't agree with them on too many things.

Come on Pool-Boy, vote for a Libertarian! You know you wanna ;)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1456/1759
EXP: 4961580
For next: 31290

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1373 days
Last activity: 139 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on 25.11.03 1602.37
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1603.19
I HAVE voted Libertarian :). I voted Harry Browne in 1996 ...

And this really is the problem with a two party system. What am I going to do ... vote Democrat? There are very few Democrats out there today that I would ever consider voting for, as most of them are basically pro-welfare state. At least in my eyes. At least in a multi-party system, if the Republicans were to propose this Drug entitlement package, the Democrats COULD say - yeah, that is as great idea! Instead, they act as if they MUST oppose it because they are the "opposition party." So the Dems want it, but are against it because they want the credit for it, and the GOP is against it, but are supporting it because they want the more moderate votes.

I can't be alone here- there MUST be Democrats out there scratching their heads wondering why the hell their side is opposing this thing... it is EXACTLY what they asked for.

Sure, I will vot third party again... if a good canditate comes along. But if it is just another run-of-the-mill politician, might as well stick to the bozos we already have.
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 219/2290
EXP: 7511557
For next: 245410

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 23 hours
#24 Posted on 25.11.03 1608.57
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1611.46
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Because there are constitutional reasons to have a military, and not meaningless welfare programs.


Perhaps, in my bleeding heart lefty ways, I think welfare actually HELPED PEOPLE who needed (and I'd be happy to quote the stats of single white mothers who were in career transitions). A vast minority of people abusing the system does not mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.

I live in an area of town that has no social services, where people literally come to die slowly from drug addiction and alchoholism - who are severely mentally ill, and who have - quite literally - no means to help themselves. Things have gotten so bad that the University has finally decided to step in and organize some way of dealing with the problem. County Public and Mental health has finally decided to it can no longer turn a blind eye.... and these problems are not unique to where I live.....

That is far more of priority than buying another bomber...
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1457/1759
EXP: 4961580
For next: 31290

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1373 days
Last activity: 139 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on 25.11.03 2052.21
Reposted on: 25.11.10 2053.26
I think the key in what you said, Leroy, is the County and local University. The Repulicans do not necessarily believe that there should be no social programs- just that the federal government should not be the source of these programs.

Your county government is much better equipped to know what is needed, and much better able to adapt to the situation. It is much more efficient as well- a much greater percentage of the actual money goes to people who need it on a small scale. Do you have any idea how much money is wasted on infastructure?

Also, when it is on a smaller scale, it is much easier to end a program when it is no longer needed. When you have massive federal entitlement programs, it is next to impossible to alter the program when it is broken, or end it when it is no longer needed.

I believe that social programs have a place, just not in out FEDERAL government.

Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 220/2290
EXP: 7511557
For next: 245410

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 23 hours
#26 Posted on 25.11.03 2114.06
Reposted on: 25.11.10 2114.22
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I think the key in what you said, Leroy, is the County and local University. The Repulicans do not necessarily believe that there should be no social programs- just that the federal government should not be the source of these programs.

    Your county government is much better equipped to know what is needed, and much better able to adapt to the situation. It is much more efficient as well- a much greater percentage of the actual money goes to people who need it on a small scale. Do you have any idea how much money is wasted on infastructure?

    Also, when it is on a smaller scale, it is much easier to end a program when it is no longer needed. When you have massive federal entitlement programs, it is next to impossible to alter the program when it is broken, or end it when it is no longer needed.

    I believe that social programs have a place, just not in out FEDERAL government.




I used the example because I am volunteering on the task force - so here's my additional two cents.

Our county governement is completely overworked and under-staffed, and according them, are basically adding to their already overworked case loads to deal with this problem. And the kicker - people are actually coming to Santa Barbara because the quality if the treatment is so much better than Los Angeles County, San Diego County, or Orange County - and they have to turn people away.

The university is involved merely as a coordinator - because students finally spoke up and said, "Sombody's got to do something to help these people." The homeless were overtaking the public parks, and the police didn't have enough resources to deal with it. They would arrest someone for public intoxication - the jails wouldn't take them because they were in such poor health that they needed medical care before they could be put into the system.

And the UC is the only entity with enough sway to get people off their asses.

The fact is, without people demanding an extention of resources - nothing would have even gotten off the ground - and it's still up in the air to how effective we'll be - since we have no idea how much money, or further county resources, will be required.

If we had some federal or state funding, however, it would be a MUCH different situation.... but under these current circumstances - it's unlikely.

My point is - it's fine and dandy to get all "constitutional" and say it's the not the federal goverment's job - but when people are literally DYING because no one has the means to help them - I couldn't care less what the consitution says - if it ain't good enough to help those who need the most help, then I wonder what are our "constitutional" priorities.

Edit: Added a few points and changed a whole ton of spelling errors.


(edited by Leroy on 25.11.03 1954)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1458/1759
EXP: 4961580
For next: 31290

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1373 days
Last activity: 139 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on 25.11.03 2347.12
Reposted on: 25.11.10 2348.12
The funding, whether it comes from the federal government or the county, still comes from the same place though - the taxpayer.

The county would have more resources had the California government not taken the property tax money for their own use. The problems you speak of are not the result of a county unable to take care of the problem by nature- rather, the local government is weakened by state and federal governments that take over tax monies and then redistribute back. That is one of the key issues with the car tax- The California government claims that they can't pay the counties and cities money without the car tax, yet, if they had not taken away the property tax money, these local governments would have the money they need.

More people would be helped if the counties collected the funds directly, and started the programs they need, rather than having the state and federal governments take all the tax money, filter it through the beurocrats, then redistribute the remaining cash back to the counties.

Either way, the cash comes from the same place in the beginning. Why not give the responsibility to the county government, which is more in tune with what the local population needs, than a giant, unfeeling, federal machine that sees the people who need help as nothing more than numbers on a page?
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 221/2290
EXP: 7511557
For next: 245410

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 23 hours
#28 Posted on 26.11.03 0004.23
Reposted on: 26.11.10 0005.57
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    The funding, whether it comes from the federal government or the county, still comes from the same place though - the taxpayer.

    The county would have more resources had the California government not taken the property tax money for their own use. The problems you speak of are not the result of a county unable to take care of the problem by nature- rather, the local government is weakened by state and federal governments that take over tax monies and then redistribute back. That is one of the key issues with the car tax- The California government claims that they can't pay the counties and cities money without the car tax, yet, if they had not taken away the property tax money, these local governments would have the money they need.

    More people would be helped if the counties collected the funds directly, and started the programs they need, rather than having the state and federal governments take all the tax money, filter it through the beurocrats, then redistribute the remaining cash back to the counties.

    Either way, the cash comes from the same place in the beginning. Why not give the responsibility to the county government, which is more in tune with what the local population needs, than a giant, unfeeling, federal machine that sees the people who need help as nothing more than numbers on a page?


I'll admit, you have a point here - if the counties were able to distribute funds directly, we - at least in Santa Barbara - would be in much different situation. And given the situation we are facing in my area, you would be correct - we would have FAR more resources financially than we do currently.

But not all counties have Montecito to adjust the tax bracket... hell, Oprah owns a house here... so what happens with areas that don't have the resources we have but have people in dire need of services?

I have some ideas as to what you'd suggest, but before I shoot those down....


Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2507/4700
EXP: 21721636
For next: 115026

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1327 days
Last activity: 1124 days
#29 Posted on 26.11.03 0600.36
Reposted on: 26.11.10 0604.40
But the fact of the matter is that being on the ground at the county level is one hell of a let more useful and more cost effective than having direction coming from DC. The power to enact such programs is endowed to the states by the 10th Amendment, so I have no problems if the state and local governments choose to do this from a Constitutional Perspective.

The fact of the matter is that markets correct themselves when the federal government stays out of it. In this case, the Univeristy filled a void in the marketplace .
Lexus
Bierwurst
Level: 84

Posts: 455/1857
EXP: 5506298
For next: 155678

Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 22 hours
AIM:  
#30 Posted on 26.11.03 0825.14
Reposted on: 26.11.10 0827.45
    Originally posted by Mawngo the CHango


    Bush didn't win either.


You're right, but the guy who got the Presidency in 2000 was the man who didn't lose.

I still think it's funny that everybody blames Bush because old confused people are allowed to vote. 2000 is overwith, stop living in the past, accept the country's future and try to change it rather than bitch about 3 years ago. It's a shame most democrat voters in the country will whine about the 2000 election to this very day, and don't really know much about the democratic candidates, nor think they have a chance of winning (which means they won't vote, and will prove themselves right in the process.)

Also, there is a strong contigent of people in this country who do like W, oddly enough. About half the people in the country do like him, and they're not all stupid.

However, that being said, I will not be voting for Bush. I will voice my disdain in the job he's done so far. I WILL NOT complain that he won an election unfairly while ignoring old confused people.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 199/2708
EXP: 9012851
For next: 304507

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#31 Posted on 26.11.03 0844.36
Reposted on: 26.11.10 0850.10
    Originally posted by Grimis
    But the fact of the matter is that being on the ground at the county level is one hell of a let more useful and more cost effective than having direction coming from DC. The power to enact such programs is endowed to the states by the 10th Amendment, so I have no problems if the state and local governments choose to do this from a Constitutional Perspective.

    The fact of the matter is that markets correct themselves when the federal government stays out of it. In this case, the Univeristy filled a void in the marketplace .


Grimis you may be right, however, how can local governments bear the cost? I live in a county approxiamtely 800 square miles in size with under 5000 people. Over half these people are at or below the poverty level. Kansas is a huge state geographically but with only 2.7 million people and based in agriculture. Our median family income is well below the national average and we are intimately tied to agriculture and aviation. We have a lot of people who need help, even though they are employed. We can't deal with this without outside help. We are a country and have an obligation to insure a minimum quality of life to everyone. Our "markets" just aren't equipped to fill the void.

The Rep's had a good idea with block granting funds and allowing smaller units of governemnt to decide their use. I can even go along with having religous orgs in the mix. But to say the fed have no role just doesn't accept reality.

And yes I am involved in various local program to help. We just can't generate the resources to help all those in real need.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 647/6371
EXP: 33961700
For next: 158398

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#32 Posted on 26.11.03 1006.43
Reposted on: 26.11.10 1006.45
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Grimis you may be right, however, how can local governments bear the cost? I live in a county approxiamtely 800 square miles in size with under 5000 people. Over half these people are at or below the poverty level. Kansas is a huge state geographically but with only 2.7 million people and based in agriculture. Our median family income is well below the national average and we are intimately tied to agriculture and aviation. We have a lot of people who need help, even though they are employed. We can't deal with this without outside help. We are a country and have an obligation to insure a minimum quality of life to everyone. Our "markets" just aren't equipped to fill the void.

    The Rep's had a good idea with block granting funds and allowing smaller units of governemnt to decide their use. I can even go along with having religous orgs in the mix. But to say the fed have no role just doesn't accept reality.

    And yes I am involved in various local program to help. We just can't generate the resources to help all those in real need.


This is where I have a problem though, as I dont see it as the federal governments respnsiblity to "help" people simply because they cannot make a decent living. It may sound cruel and greedy, but why should me FEDERAL tax dollars go someplace to help somebody out, and not take care of things like National Security and the national infrastructure? (did I spell that correctly?)
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 366/641
EXP: 1111433
For next: 45693

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3759 days
Last activity: 3417 days
#33 Posted on 26.11.03 1108.17
Reposted on: 26.11.10 1108.42
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Grimis you may be right, however, how can local governments bear the cost? I live in a county approxiamtely 800 square miles in size with under 5000 people. Over half these people are at or below the poverty level. Kansas is a huge state geographically but with only 2.7 million people and based in agriculture. Our median family income is well below the national average and we are intimately tied to agriculture and aviation. We have a lot of people who need help, even though they are employed. We can't deal with this without outside help. We are a country and have an obligation to insure a minimum quality of life to everyone. Our "markets" just aren't equipped to fill the void.

      The Rep's had a good idea with block granting funds and allowing smaller units of governemnt to decide their use. I can even go along with having religous orgs in the mix. But to say the fed have no role just doesn't accept reality.

      And yes I am involved in various local program to help. We just can't generate the resources to help all those in real need.


    This is where I have a problem though, as I dont see it as the federal governments respnsiblity to "help" people simply because they cannot make a decent living. It may sound cruel and greedy, but why should me FEDERAL tax dollars go someplace to help somebody out, and not take care of things like National Security and the national infrastructure? (did I spell that correctly?)


Because, we as the people, do not have final say on where the $$$ goes. The law makers get to do that. We just get to decide who gets to make those decisions.

It's just part of the political process. We elect represenatives who in turn (and hopefully in good faith, HA!) decide what is best for this country. Sometimes we get good decisions, sometimes we get bad ones. Sometimes they have to balance things, other times it's severely unbalanced.

And for the record, there are too many social, economical and political reasons out there for it to be "simply not making a good living." Yes, there are lazy people who refuse to better themselves and will abuse a system. But there are people out there who are put into a bad situation and have to claw their way up. A little boost every now and then can be a good thing. Especially if it sets a precedent for others in similar situations to follow suit.

And another side of the argument is: if we are willing to shill out Billions to other countries to help their poor, then we should take care of our poor first.

Discuss. :)

(edited by ThreepMe on 26.11.03 0908)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 201/2708
EXP: 9012851
For next: 304507

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#34 Posted on 26.11.03 1156.13
Reposted on: 26.11.10 1156.19
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Grimis you may be right, however, how can local governments bear the cost? I live in a county approxiamtely 800 square miles in size with under 5000 people. Over half these people are at or below the poverty level. Kansas is a huge state geographically but with only 2.7 million people and based in agriculture. Our median family income is well below the national average and we are intimately tied to agriculture and aviation. We have a lot of people who need help, even though they are employed. We can't deal with this without outside help. We are a country and have an obligation to insure a minimum quality of life to everyone. Our "markets" just aren't equipped to fill the void.

      The Rep's had a good idea with block granting funds and allowing smaller units of governemnt to decide their use. I can even go along with having religous orgs in the mix. But to say the fed have no role just doesn't accept reality.

      And yes I am involved in various local program to help. We just can't generate the resources to help all those in real need.


    This is where I have a problem though, as I dont see it as the federal governments respnsiblity to "help" people simply because they cannot make a decent living. It may sound cruel and greedy, but why should me FEDERAL tax dollars go someplace to help somebody out, and not take care of things like National Security and the national infrastructure? (did I spell that correctly?)


StaggeLee, we have a moral duty to help those in need, especially the children who do not get to choose their circumstances. And I am not talking about making a decent living, I am talking about providing food, shelter, clothing, and a basic education. During the summer approximately 40% of the kids in our district have little to eat. Without subsidized breakfasts and lunches that they receive during the school year, they are screwed.

Also helping the under/lower classes contributes greatly to our national security. You are going to pay for these situations one way or another. I would rather feed and educate them for jobs than pay to put them in jail for year. One other thing, these people in the Hearland and many rural areas help prodcue the cheap food you enjoy. We have a low employment rate. Most of these people work hard to support their families. They just get paid crap and have no benefits. None. The long term key is to educate peole in these circumsatnces and their children. It works, I grew up in a lower class family and with loans, etc. was able to obtain three degrees, obtain a good position, and pay lots of taxes that I am glad to pay to provide for national security, and programs to help the less fortunate. I have repaid what the country put into my edcation many times over in taxes. My family recieved no welfare etc., my dad just worked three jobs. We were pre welfare state. But I don't begrudge people in a position like we were in form obtaining basic health care and such on my dime.
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 222/2290
EXP: 7511557
For next: 245410

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 23 hours
#35 Posted on 26.11.03 1205.37
Reposted on: 26.11.10 1206.23
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    Because, we as the people, do not have final say on where the $$$ goes. The law makers get to do that. We just get to decide who gets to make those decisions.

    It's just part of the political process. We elect represenatives who in turn (and hopefully in good faith, HA!) decide what is best for this country. Sometimes we get good decisions, sometimes we get bad ones. Sometimes they have to balance things, other times it's severely unbalanced.


Actually, I'd take it a step further and say it should be the governments priority to see that its citizens are provided for - because idealistically the governemnet IS the citizenry. It should provide for itself - to me it's really that simple.

Now, I don't think that's actually what's happening in our current system - and I think it's criminal.

If the counties don't have the resources, the state should provide - and if the state cannot do it, then federal governement should provide.... and I think that's where the lefties and righties will fundamentally disagree.

But to say people should live in shit - literally - because it's not the "federal government's job" to provide these resources is just not a satisfactory answer. I would rather see money go this direction than what it is currently being used for...
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 204/2708
EXP: 9012851
For next: 304507

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#36 Posted on 26.11.03 1703.47
Reposted on: 26.11.10 1704.23
    Originally posted by Leroy
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Because, we as the people, do not have final say on where the $$$ goes. The law makers get to do that. We just get to decide who gets to make those decisions.

      It's just part of the political process. We elect represenatives who in turn (and hopefully in good faith, HA!) decide what is best for this country. Sometimes we get good decisions, sometimes we get bad ones. Sometimes they have to balance things, other times it's severely unbalanced.


    Actually, I'd take it a step further and say it should be the governments priority to see that its citizens are provided for - because idealistically the governemnet IS the citizenry. It should provide for itself - to me it's really that simple.

    Now, I don't think that's actually what's happening in our current system - and I think it's criminal.

    If the counties don't have the resources, the state should provide - and if the state cannot do it, then federal governement should provide.... and I think that's where the lefties and righties will fundamentally disagree.

    But to say people should live in shit - literally - because it's not the "federal government's job" to provide these resources is just not a satisfactory answer. I would rather see money go this direction than what it is currently being used for...


Leroy, your points are well made. I don't understand how we refer to the government as an entity apart form ourselves. Lets see, I think the phrase is "We the People."

If we do not address these problems as a country, then Grimis and others wishing for more defense spending will get their wish. We'll need a large military to occupy cities and keep the unwashed in line. I am a Liberal but I want to see us provide help for people to meet basic needs and then once they have adequate food, shelter, and clothing, educate them and/or train them to be able to take jobs and move off the public dole. That is what true Liberals want and also IMO what many conservatives could agree to.

The great divide today isn't really income. The divide exists from lack of education and access to information. Today information provides real wealth.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2515/4700
EXP: 21721636
For next: 115026

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1327 days
Last activity: 1124 days
#37 Posted on 1.12.03 0637.10
Reposted on: 1.12.10 0637.44
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    If we do not address these problems as a country, then Grimis and others wishing for more defense spending will get their wish. We'll need a large military to occupy cities and keep the unwashed in line.
Incidentally, I don't beleive I ever called for more defense spending, just that it is a justifiable federal expense.

Incidentally, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the military from being used as domestic law enforcement.

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I am a Liberal but I want to see us provide help for people to meet basic needs and then once they have adequate food, shelter, and clothing, educate them and/or train them to be able to take jobs and move off the public dole. That is what true Liberals want and also IMO what many conservatives could agree to.
Workfare is a much better program than welfare, I agree. But I don't necessarily want to provide for that either. True, it is a better use of money than handouts. But still...
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 222/2708
EXP: 9012851
For next: 304507

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#38 Posted on 1.12.03 0840.45
Reposted on: 1.12.10 0840.54
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      If we do not address these problems as a country, then Grimis and others wishing for more defense spending will get their wish. We'll need a large military to occupy cities and keep the unwashed in line.
    Incidentally, I don't beleive I ever called for more defense spending, just that it is a justifiable federal expense.

    Incidentally, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the military from being used as domestic law enforcement.

      Originally posted by DrDirt
      I am a Liberal but I want to see us provide help for people to meet basic needs and then once they have adequate food, shelter, and clothing, educate them and/or train them to be able to take jobs and move off the public dole. That is what true Liberals want and also IMO what many conservatives could agree to.
    Workfare is a much better program than welfare, I agree. But I don't necessarily want to provide for that either. True, it is a better use of money than handouts. But still...



Sorry Grimis, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Regardless of the Posse Comitatus act, we have and will use the military as domestic law enforcement. Little Rock desegregations comes to mind as does the time when Meridith enrolled in college, and the riots of the 1960's. The point is that no country wishing for long-term survival and advancement can afford to allow the underclass to be ignored. It is part of "national security."

I know you don't want to provide for either but it does provide for "peace and prosperity..."
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1911/3273
EXP: 12855163
For next: 236190

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 256 days
Last activity: 57 days
#39 Posted on 4.12.03 1416.11
Reposted on: 4.12.10 1417.57
1) I believe the rule is that you cannot use Federal troops as law enforcement. However, State National Guard can be brought in.

2) This is one of the things that I just don't understand about conservatives. The whole "What's mine is mine, and I refuse to share" bit. States like Wyoming and Kansas just don't have the population, the jobs, or the income to afford the quality of life in New York or in California. And I'm not talking about Plasma TVs and the latest Cadillac. I mean quality hospitals and schools. I just don't understand the mentality that provides us with, "I'm sorry Bobby. You may be an American citizen, but you don't get the same opportunities because you were born in the wrong part of America."

3) I agree that the federal government is bloated and spends way too much on programs that don't work (I don't agree that everything should be blamed on liberals, though). But I disagree with the thought that the federal government shouldn't be involved at all.

-Jag
whatever
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 248/1743
EXP: 4985304
For next: 7566

Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#40 Posted on 5.12.03 1634.24
Reposted on: 5.12.10 1635.56
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Sure, I will vote third party again... if a good canditate comes along. But if it is just another run-of-the-mill politician, might as well stick to the bozos we already have.

I also voted for Nader in 2000. Being the moderate that I am, I am so fed up with the two-party system that I was praying they'd get the 5% vote needed. Oh well.

Any ideas on third-party candidates this time 'round? I did some looking and I didn't see anything on Harry Browne's website. I know Nader is a possibility again for the Greens.

If I had to choose from the Democrats at this point, I don't know who I'd choose for the nomination. But if there isn't a decent third-party candidate, I'm voting for any of them instead of Bush.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Sen. Paul Simon, RIP
Next thread: Democratic VP Nominee Horserace...
Previous thread: Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
(1207 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - GW Bush StickersRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.274 seconds.