Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Its really not leaders that we should worry about but policies. Politicians should just do what the majority of their voters want and let the voters decide policy. That is what politicians should do and should not concern themselves with "leading" because they are just pegs that fit whatever hole we the voters create with our own debate. They can be a braindead retard as long as the vote for what we tell them to vote for and everything will be fine because the role of policy creation should be in the hands of the voters and not in the hands of the elected politicians.
Wrong!
Those in office are actually a check and balance against the simple majority. We are a Republic not a strict democracy. You might want to check into what that means.
Maybe I'll jump on the Paulie bandwagon and vote for Ron Paul.
I'm sure Ron Paul's balls are shriveled and have minimal sway.
Its really not leaders that we should worry about but policies. Politicians should just do what the majority of their voters want and let the voters decide policy. That is what politicians should do and should not concern themselves with "leading" because they are just pegs that fit whatever hole we the voters create with our own debate. They can be a braindead retard as long as the vote for what we tell them to vote for and everything will be fine because the role of policy creation should be in the hands of the voters and not in the hands of the elected politicians.
Wrong!
Those in office are actually a check and balance against the simple majority. We are a Republic not a strict democracy. You might want to check into what that means.
I'm not sure what you are saying. I know its a republic but its a democratic one where elected officials have limited powers given to them in the constitution but over the things they do have power over they must follow the simple majority. Not doing so is nullifying the people which removes a vital check against government abuse. Do you really want politicians to veto the will of the majority in favor of the minority?
Wrong!
Those in office are actually a check and balance against the simple majority. We are a Republic not a strict democracy. You might want to check into what that means.
I'm not sure what you are saying. I know its a republic but its a democratic one where elected officials have limited powers given to them in the constitution but over the things they do have power over they must follow the simple majority. Not doing so is nullifying the people which removes a vital check against government abuse. Do you really want politicians to veto the will of the majority in favor of the minority?
Okay, you are clueless, so I'll help. The framers of the Constitution realized the general populous might be easily swayed by an issue of the moment, so they made sure it was possible to let the minority opinion speak. To confirm this you simply have to remember the Senate has to pass a measure as well as the House, but has much longer terms of office. An example of this in action would have been the desegregation of the south in the 60's. Those states did not want to follow the law. The government enforced it none the less.
If it was a matter of figuring out what the public wanted and implementing, we would just have regualr voting sessions on issues all the time without a Congress. The only check you have as a citizen is your vote. Once in office it is pretty hard to effect change. Oh there are means, but it is hard to meet that standard. Note a simple majority is not enough in some cases like a Constitutional Amendment.
Funny...I always thought Ron Paul was a Libertarian and he just used the GOP as a means to an end.Of course, if you let only the mainstream media do your thinking for you throughout the race (as most of the electorate does), you may very well have actually thought Paul was running Libertarian, considering how many times they made sure they mentioned that word when they spoke of him.
I'm sorry, I actually voted for 2. I voted for one of the R candidates in my gubernatorial primary back in June. He was basically the Ron Paul of that race.
Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN, no?
The one and only that I've ever voted for, yes. In my primary. Not because he had an R, but because he was the kind of conservative that I actually like.
And in the general I voted 3rd party.
Clearly the old dude is the divider. Clearly.sorry - trying to put words into Obama's mouth that he didn't say - even in the form of a poem - doesn't make Obama a divider.
If you've opted out of the process, then you've divided yourself out. Can't blame anyone but yourself. And if you are trying to put dividing words into someone else's mouth ..... who is the divider??????
You either missed the point or I did not articulate the point appropriately.
It was not a poem. ANd yes, I did put words in his mputh...bnut made it cler that I did so.
The point is, he knows how Ameericans are...He does not need to say ALL.....yet most in America will her ALL.
GO ask around...ask people what they think of Wall Streeters......hear what they have to say.
But whatever....I dont have time for this debate....busy day.....you made some sound points but we do not see eye to eye.
Lets sit back and watch how things pan oput.
Take care.........think I am done on this site....too few posters like you and too many like shogun....SOmetimes when I read some responses to others I am embarrassed to be part of this club if you know what I mean.
<S>.....
You don't get it? No one is attacking you old dude, you are telling straight up lies on our President and you are feeling bad and attacked that people are calling you on it? Have you lost your cotton-pickin' mind??!??I dont get it. I thought this was a board for debating. I say what I feel...you say what you feel.
Never questioned your integrity nodog and Ravi.....we do not see eye to eye...heck...both of you seem to frown on me as a person for my beleif...I dont get it.
Anyway....I do NOT put words in his mouth...I used it as an example...and made it clear he did NOT say those things.....yet THAT is what you are attacking.
Remember...it is not what you say...it is what those that listen hear.
That being said...I find it interesting how many times a week Gibbs says "I have the treanscript right here....the Presidnet did not say that"
Why do you think that is?
Thank you. Its always ignored until its YOU.I would suggest that there are those who have been well aware of the differences for quite some time now. Perhaps it's just that NOW a new group of folks find themselves in the minority. Guess it is a wake-up call for THEM.We've always been divided. It's just recently that we've become aware of it.
Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN, no?
The one and only that I've ever voted for, yes. In my primary. Not because he had an R, but because he was the kind of conservative that I actually like.
And in the general I voted 3rd party.
riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?
The one and only that I've ever voted for, yes. In my primary. Not because he had an R, but because he was the kind of conservative that I actually like.
And in the general I voted 3rd party.
riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?
the same way a vote for Obama supposedly was to become an expression for change....
riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?
the same way a vote for Obama supposedly was to become an expression for change....
but Obama was always a democrat and never assumed to be a split from a major party. You don't really know what the hell you are commenting about, do you?
riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?
the same way a vote for Obama supposedly was to become an expression for change....
but Obama was always a democrat and never assumed to be a split from a major party. You don't really know what the hell you are commenting about, do you?
the same way a vote for Obama supposedly was to become an expression for change....
but Obama was always a democrat and never assumed to be a split from a major party. You don't really know what the hell you are commenting about, do you?
Obama is a socialist who calls himself a Democrat...just because he can't advertise it as a membership in another political party doesn't mean it's not true. you really don't know what your talking about do you? You voted for him...and his agenda of "fundamental change."
Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN, no?
The one and only that I've ever voted for, yes. In my primary. Not because he had an R, but because he was the kind of conservative that I actually like.
And in the general I voted 3rd party.
riiiiighhht.... but, how does a vote for him, a Republican, become an expression for a third party?
Rav, this is because you lack usage of some very important parts of the brain.Funny...I always thought Ron Paul was a Libertarian and he just used the GOP as a means to an end.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
