[quote]Valor wrote:
I just want to say a big fuck you to all his short sighted, ignorant, cowardly supporters.[/quote]
Then why the hell are you posting this here? Nobody on this board voted for Barack Obama. Here:
[quote]Valor wrote:
I just want to say a big fuck you to all his short sighted, ignorant, cowardly supporters.[/quote]
Then why the hell are you posting this here? Nobody on this board voted for Barack Obama. Here:
[quote]Valor wrote:
I just want to say a big fuck you to all his short sighted, ignorant, cowardly supporters.[/quote]
Then why the hell are you posting this here? Nobody on this board voted for Barack Obama. Here:
OMG, let’s do a fucking raid on that site, like Zap did with the quilters. Who’s on board?
[/quote]
What quilters, and why do you sound as if you just discovered that liberal message boards exist on the internet?
I don’t see how anyone could use the internet in this day and age and not be aware of the fact that there are dozens of sites and forums for nearly every political, ideological, theological, philosophical or other persuasion.
I really get the impression that some of you guys visit this site exclusively and don’t realize that there is a wide world of internet out there with probably a few trillion pages of information.
It makes me question my commitment to posting here when I know that I’m arguing with people who have received so little exposure to the big picture.
[quote]Valor wrote:
I just want to say a big fuck you to all his short sighted, ignorant, cowardly supporters.[/quote]
Then why the hell are you posting this here? Nobody on this board voted for Barack Obama. Here:
OMG, let’s do a fucking raid on that site, like Zap did with the quilters. Who’s on board?
[/quote]
What quilters, and why do you sound as if you just discovered that liberal message boards exist on the internet?
I don’t see how anyone could use the internet in this day and age and not be aware of the fact that there are dozens of sites and forums for nearly every political, ideological, theological, philosophical or other persuasion.
I really get the impression that some of you guys visit this site exclusively and don’t realize that there is a wide world of internet out there with probably a few trillion pages of information.
It makes me question my commitment to posting here when I know that I’m arguing with people who have received so little exposure to the big picture.[/quote]
[quote]John S. wrote:
The democrats are spending at record speeds, they are killing the fiat dollar but are too stupid to admit it.[/quote]
Wars don’t count?[/quote]
Wars DO count. But this administration has sped up the pace of spending far, FAR beyond what GW was into…which was stupid in the first place. The wars are a drop in the bucket at these new record levels, and I for one do not like it at all.
Oh, and they haven’t stopped the wars that GW started. Oh, and they’re working on pushing even more assets into the AfPak region…which will cost still more money.[/quote]
Except the Democrats were in the House and Senate, Congress is responsible voting for wars not the president. Maybe you should read the Constitution.
[quote]willfull wrote:
And anyone supporting an iq test for voting has no concept of liberty…ironic that their name would be the same as papers written by the author of our constitution.[/quote]
Voting should be done by education or service to country.
No high school diploma: vote = 0 (they can’t vote)
High school diploma: vote = 1
Bachelor’s: vote = 2
Military: vote = 3
Master’s: vote = 5
Doctoral: vote = 10
This could be made even saner by requiring (1) own property and/or (2) 30 years old or higher
except for military. All military can vote. Military (active duty) should have each vote = 25. (Anyone who risks their life for me gets to have their vote count for A LOT.)
[/quote]
We should have factors
0.5x for women
0.25x for black people
0.1x for egalitarian scumbags
2x if you are rich
[quote]John S. wrote:
The democrats are spending at record speeds, they are killing the fiat dollar but are too stupid to admit it.[/quote]
Wars don’t count?[/quote]
Wars DO count. But this administration has sped up the pace of spending far, FAR beyond what GW was into…which was stupid in the first place. The wars are a drop in the bucket at these new record levels, and I for one do not like it at all.
Oh, and they haven’t stopped the wars that GW started. Oh, and they’re working on pushing even more assets into the AfPak region…which will cost still more money.[/quote]
Except the Democrats were in the House and Senate, Congress is responsible voting for wars not the president. Maybe you should read the Constitution.
[/quote]
Quit your childish antics. Of course Congress is responsible for voting for declaration of war (War Powers Clause–it’s in Article 1 thank you). But Presidents of years past have used their power to stretch that limit to the brink…for instance Vietnam. The War Powers Resolution didn’t pass until 1973, over Nixon’s veto. The Congress passed this because they had become worried about the erosion of their war powers under the Constitution, of which the Korean and Vietnam wars were only the culmination. Past presidents had indeed stretched their authority as far as they could. Maybe you should read some history. This goes as far back as Abraham Lincoln, who summoned an army, expended unappropriated funds, and suspended habeas corpus. Without Congress’s consent at the time.
Furthermore–and more importantly–the President and his administration are responsible for setting agendas and policy before Congress. They cannot legislate, but the fact that they attempt to guide the legislative process in directions they want should be plainly obvious to you. Whether you want to call this technically an infringement on the Constitutional separation of powers or not is a moot point–it is practical reality. This is precisely what Bush did. AND what Obama is doing. And what almost every president before them has done in various ways. They are figureheads with power, and they must take responsibility for the things they push as well as Congress.
[quote]willfull wrote:
And anyone supporting an iq test for voting has no concept of liberty…ironic that their name would be the same as papers written by the author of our constitution.[/quote]
Voting should be done by education or service to country.
No high school diploma: vote = 0 (they can’t vote)
High school diploma: vote = 1
Bachelor’s: vote = 2
Military: vote = 3
Master’s: vote = 5
Doctoral: vote = 10
This could be made even saner by requiring (1) own property and/or (2) 30 years old or higher
except for military. All military can vote. Military (active duty) should have each vote = 25. (Anyone who risks their life for me gets to have their vote count for A LOT.)
[/quote]
We should have factors
0.5x for women
0.25x for black people
0.1x for egalitarian scumbags
2x if you are rich[/quote]
Now there’s a plan I can get behind. The founding fathers intended for the people who owned most of this country (the wealthy landowners) to become elected and run the government. That’s the way it ought to be in any society. The masses cannot rule themselves nor can they be trusted to elect the right peoeple to do it for them.
Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all, though.
[quote]willfull wrote:
And anyone supporting an iq test for voting has no concept of liberty…ironic that their name would be the same as papers written by the author of our constitution.[/quote]
Voting should be done by education or service to country.
No high school diploma: vote = 0 (they can’t vote)
High school diploma: vote = 1
Bachelor’s: vote = 2
Military: vote = 3
Master’s: vote = 5
Doctoral: vote = 10
This could be made even saner by requiring (1) own property and/or (2) 30 years old or higher
except for military. All military can vote. Military (active duty) should have each vote = 25. (Anyone who risks their life for me gets to have their vote count for A LOT.)
[/quote]
We should have factors
0.5x for women
0.25x for black people
0.1x for egalitarian scumbags
2x if you are rich[/quote]
Now there’s a plan I can get behind. The founding fathers intended for the people who owned most of this country (the wealthy landowners) to become elected and run the government. That’s the way it ought to be in any society. The masses cannot rule themselves nor can they be trusted to elect the right peoeple to do it for them.
Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all, though.[/quote]
If you stop for a second and ponder the reason why the masses cannot govern themselves, its that they haven’t been taught to be free thinking, self sufficient with a knowledge and inclination to take part in the democratic process… oh wait, maybe they structured our school system like that on purpose.
Hey, lets sever the country into “democratic” and “republican” factions so theyre distracted and can never agree on anything, and they will never unify as one against the ones who control this country.
[quote]willfull wrote:
And anyone supporting an iq test for voting has no concept of liberty…ironic that their name would be the same as papers written by the author of our constitution.[/quote]
Voting should be done by education or service to country.
No high school diploma: vote = 0 (they can’t vote)
High school diploma: vote = 1
Bachelor’s: vote = 2
Military: vote = 3
Master’s: vote = 5
Doctoral: vote = 10
This could be made even saner by requiring (1) own property and/or (2) 30 years old or higher
except for military. All military can vote. Military (active duty) should have each vote = 25. (Anyone who risks their life for me gets to have their vote count for A LOT.)
[/quote]
We should have factors
0.5x for women
0.25x for black people
0.1x for egalitarian scumbags
2x if you are rich[/quote]
My point was that voting should be EARNED. When ACORN can go out and recruit people who list a park bench as their home AND those people can mass up and decide the future of one’s country…well, that’s a formula for disaster.
If a woman or black person earns a diploma or serves in the military, their votes should be independent of race or gender. Intelligence and commitment to this country should be what we look for in who runs the country.
It makes me question my commitment to posting here when I know that I’m arguing with people who have received so little exposure to the big picture.[/quote]
There’s only so many hours in a day, bro.
Zap Branigan and a few others raided a quilting board located in England. One of the funniest threads EVER. Search it and prepare for an ab workout!
Half of he people eligible for voting don’t. A shame really.
You have an estimated 207,643,594 (Census) and only 130,000,000 actually voting in 2008, and they’re all voting either This or That.
Couple this with the Popular Vote -vs- the Electoral Vote. It’s only been 4 times that they differed, but most noticeably was the 2000 election that got Bush into office. Which is why we’re at where we’re at today.
[quote]J.R. Hud wrote:
Half of he people eligible for voting don’t. A shame really.
You have an estimated 207,643,594 (Census) and only 130,000,000 actually voting in 2008, and they’re all voting either This or That.
Couple this with the Popular Vote -vs- the Electoral Vote. It’s only been 4 times that they differed, but most noticeably was the 2000 election that got Bush into office. Which is why we’re at where we’re at today.
[/quote]
More ACORN voters…yeah…that’s what we need.
This system sucks. Some demagogue like Obama gets ignorant half-wits to vote him into power over vast industries that the demagogue and his patsies can’t even begin to comprehend or appreciate, over people whose drive and ambition terrify the socialistic slobs and proles, and we’re supposed to take their orders?
What if the best people in the country don’t want to take orders from scum like Obama, Reid, Murtha, and Barney the Homo?
[quote]Valor wrote:
As the Obama admin spends our way into third world living conditions and speeds up government control of our lives… I just want to say a big fuck you to all his short sighted, ignorant, cowardly supporters.
Fuck you.[/quote]
Until half of America looks like this boy, I would say we are quite a ways off from third world living conditions. Half of America not getting the ipod they wanted for christmas doesn’t count.
And are you really calling Obama supporters cowardly over the internet? Kind of ironic eh?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that people get the government that they deserve. [/quote]
Orwell may have said something similar. Or Alexis De Tocqueville. Source seems to be ambiguous.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Until half of America looks like this boy, I would say we are quite a ways off from third world living conditions. Half of America not getting the ipod they wanted for christmas doesn’t count.
And are you really calling Obama supporters cowardly over the internet? Kind of ironic eh? [/quote]
Yeah, and he’s doing it on a forum where he knows there will be no serious opposition. Quite sad. Maybe I should play devil’s advocate and start responding to threads like these with liberal talking points.
