Just when you think politicians can't sink lower

[rickster]

I just don't see what the big deal is. It isn't like the administration is requiring anyone to do anything. They are saying here is another way to contribute if you want to do so. Don't like it, don't contribute. Pretty freaking easy, huh?

Unfortunately, I see this as how this race is gonna wind up. Anything and everything will be turned into an attack, common sense be damned. There are so many real issues that need to be discussed in this election and THIS is something that even shows up on the radar?! Crazy.

And this is different than what other race/campaign, administration, or political subject?

 

[granfire]

Political speech is free speech. So capping the amount of money the parties can spend limits their ability to speak freely. The courts have said no to that.

They are still free to speak. If they can speak for free that is.

It would cut down on the year round election pollution, too, I bet!

I mean, the election is not for another 6 month and they have already been campaigning for 2 years...

 

[rickster]

I can't see how that works tbh, you can still say what you want on a smaller budget, perhaps the ad agencies, the television companies etc would be too much out of pocket not mention all the spin doctors the parties employ so would not be happy to lose money. Capping the money spent means a level playing field for everyone, means anyone can campaign then not just the rich. It would encourage some creative and inventive campaigns, rather than the mudslinging type, perhaps they would be short and to the point! You could all start your own parties and we could have a thread with your short pithy statements on! Be very cool to say I'd argued with a future American President on here, not to mention having a martial arts President!

Cap spending? Sounds like the NFL

 

[Bill Mattocks]

BillM's got no chance in politics, Tez, I am sad to say. For not only does he speak his mind rather than pander to the 'popular' line but he's honest with it. That'll never fly on the campaign trail .

Not to mention my sordid past.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

They are still free to speak. If they can speak for free that is.

It would cut down on the year round election pollution, too, I bet!

I mean, the election is not for another 6 month and they have already been campaigning for 2 years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States

 

[granfire]

Not to mention my sordid past.

LOL, didn't keep a bunch of guys from running....and gaining office! ^_^

 

[crushing]

Or other special occasions like birthdays...

It's novel. It's creative. And it's in no way an obligation or demand. I bet it's a response or use of something that already had happened... If a couple getting married, or someone having a birthday, or whatever, is sufficiently politically active, it's their choice. Their guests aren't even obligated to donate, any more than any other gift registry obligates a person to a specific gift.

What's so bothersome about it, Don?

I don't know if it says bad things about me, but I don't find that this really bothers me at all.

If I want to get upset over donations I think of the Haiti Earthquake relief money being used to build resorts for the rich so that eventually the Haitians that aren't killed by UN imported disease can have service jobs.

 

[granfire]

I don't know if it says bad things about me, but I don't find that this really bothers me at all.

If I want to get upset over donations I think of the Haiti Earthquake relief money being used to build resorts for the rich so that eventually the Haitians that aren't killed by UN imported disease can have service jobs.

Hey, it does produce jobs! :lol:

But yeah, Haiti needs a bit more than resorts...

 

[pgsmith]

FYI: Our politicians have a mental illness called Narcisstic Personality Disorder

There, I've fixed that typo for you ...

 

[Master Dan]

When I think of myself as a conservative, I think of these things, in no particular order:

1) Strong military.
2) Small government.
3) State's rights.
4) Support for the Constitution.
5) Resistance to social change.

As I get older, I find myself more open to the role of government in areas of social services and regulation; I begin to see that the smooth functioning of society has come to depend on some of those things, and I don't resent them anymore. I am less rugged individualist and more communitarian-minded. However, I still resist and resent government intrusion into religion and the existing social order. I fear socialism, especially bungled, badly-done socialism. I also find myself fearing those GOP members who call themselves conservatives, but (as someone here mentioned) would make Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater spin in their graves. I fear they are less conservative and more populist-leaning-towards-fascist. The Left, I fear, is more populist-leaning-towards-fascist. Yes, fascism can be Left or Right -- it's mostly a militant brand of populism with Nationalist overtones. The Right is no longer 'Conservative' and the Left is no longer classical Liberal. They are both a mish-mash of gimme-gimmes with no regard for anyone but themselves and their vision of how the world ought to not just operate, but be forced to operate.

I am against being forced. So screw the Democrats and screw the Republicans. They both stink on ice.

1. Strong Military What does that Mean?? 450 bases globally?? WE can wipe out the deficit on single states budgets from what we spend in Afghanistan in per day? How is National Security and strong Military served by tax breaks that bankrupt our budgets to pay for it??
2. Small Government? What does that mean shut down EPA, OSHA, many other regulatory agencies, Social Security, Medicade, Medicare pay for all deficits by reducing entitlements 50% instead of tax revenues? This is what Tea Party and the rich want?
3. States Rights? Yes when it comes to having a say over a states resources and some other issues but we are Republic and there are federal laws that have to be uniform such as Imigration states cannot superseed or negate federal jurisdiction and laws unless there is an amendment to the Constitution?
4. Support for the Constitution? What does that mean be specific?? Our supreme court is supposed to do that but thier allowing Citizens United unlimited funding of political advertising by corporations and even foriegn goverments is totally agains what the founding fathers wanted. Governor of Montanna said the state elections are just now for sale.

5. Resistance to Social Change?? Be specific what are you against? We have seperation of church and state? You cannot legislate morality though it would seem we should when it comes to fair and equal treatment of all including women.

Bill has not answered any of the specifics I gave him because he and others here are more interested in hit an run slam posts I only see complaining and me good you bad posts? Fires, Floods, Tornado's, Biblical disasters it would seem are upon us and December 2012 approaches. Does make you stop and ponder?

 

[Big Don]

1. Strong Military What does that Mean??

Big enough, and bad *** enough to protect our nation and our allies as needed.

2. Small Government? What does that mean shut down EPA, OSHA, many other regulatory agencies, Social Security, Medicade, Medicare pay for all deficits by reducing entitlements 50% instead of tax revenues?

Damn right. Anything there is not a Constitutionally required function of government is fair game, IMHO. The government does not owe you a job, anymore than it owes you a wife...

This is what Tea Party and the rich want?

Never been to a tea party, not rich by any means, it is what I want.

3. States Rights? Yes when it comes to having a say over a states resources and some other issues but we are Republic and there are federal laws that have to be uniform such as Imigration states cannot superseed or negate federal jurisdiction and laws unless there is an amendment to the Constitution?

Then the government damn sure ought to see to it's responsibility to secure the borders, and enforce the laws already in place.[quote]
4. Support for the Constitution? What does that mean be specific?? [/quote] Not inventing new rights out of thin air, for one... Not allowing a president to ignore federal law by executive order, for another...

5. We have seperation of church and state?

Not the way you think we do, those words do not appear together ANYWHERE in the constitution, or any of the other founding documents.

You cannot legislate morality though it would seem we should when it comes to fair and equal treatment of all including women.

All laws legislate morality, look up thread...

Bill has not answered any of the specifics I gave him because he and others here are more interested in hit an run slam posts I only see complaining and me good you bad posts? Fires, Floods, Tornado's, Biblical disasters it would seem are upon us and December 2012 approaches. Does make you stop and ponder?

Perhaps that is because he has a job and other obligations in real life... oh, your words make me stop and ponder, but, I doubt you would want to know what...

 

[celtic_crippler]

There's a difference between "morality" and "ethics". Perhaps that is part of the problem when it comes to legislating how people live their lives.

That being said, it's apparent that Barry has little of either. It's also apparent that many others lack much of either; be it because of desensitization or a lack of enlightenment.

 

[Master Dan]

[/B][/COLOR]Big enough, and bad *** enough to protect our nation and our allies as needed.Damn right. Anything there is not a Constitutionally required function of government is fair game, IMHO. The government does not owe you a job, anymore than it owes you a wife... Never been to a tea party, not rich by any means, it is what I want. [/COLOR]Then the government damn sure ought to see to it's responsibility to secure the borders, and enforce the laws already in place.[quote]
4. Support for the Constitution? What does that mean be specific??

Not inventing new rights out of thin air, for one... Not allowing a president to ignore federal law by executive order, for another...Not the way you think we do, those words do not appear together ANYWHERE in the constitution, or any of the other founding documents.[/COLOR]All laws legislate morality, look up thread...Perhaps that is because he has a job and other obligations in real life... oh, your words make me stop and ponder, but, I doubt you would want to know what...[/QUOTE] Hope you understand I mean Billacheck not Bill Mattocks. this was a good exchange still in general it is complex and requires serious plans to resolve your our issues in this country and I hear nothing from Romney or the like giving any real suggestions of solutions except rehtoric and unspecific generalities?


Do you really understand what would happen to you and many people if you got rid of many government agencies totally health and safety wise? Big enough Bad *** enough? my thought is we have thousands of nuclear weopons and drones why do we need to have physical presense one town gone no more terrorist but also our forieng policy that makes slaves out of populous while supporting despot leaders creates our security risks? WE need more than just emotional quiping but real action that will require some sacrifise on everone's part in proportion but not at the cost of poor, ederly, children. I am not happy with Obama and especially our congress senate but we need to get rid of most and start over with people committed to serve with term limits and go home. As a country we are just to fractured get organized and the polititions are banking on that just enough to get by stay in power suck up what they can as long as they can and not do what is best for the country becasue some special interest group may be offended or they loose votes?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

1. Strong Military What does that Mean?? 450 bases globally?? WE can wipe out the deficit on single states budgets from what we spend in Afghanistan in per day? How is National Security and strong Military served by tax breaks that bankrupt our budgets to pay for it??

To me, having a 'strong military' means that the USA should maintain the most powerful military in the world, able to meet and defeat any potential challenge from any nation. That means a large force, good training, good equipment, and good pay and benefits for those who serve our nation in uniform. It also means maintaining the ability of the defense industry to innovate, create, and build the next generation of war-fighting equipment, from R&D to manufacturing.

I am not going to take your bait and defend the war in Afghanistan, tax breaks, or whatever else you're moaning about.

2. Small Government? What does that mean shut down EPA, OSHA, many other regulatory agencies, Social Security, Medicade, Medicare pay for all deficits by reducing entitlements 50% instead of tax revenues? This is what Tea Party and the rich want?

Small government, to me, means eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse at every level of government to the extent possible. It means that every agency and department is and should be subjected to regular review and inspection to avoid such things. It means setting caps on government expansion, such that if a new department is created, another must be dismantled. It means a federal government that is aligned with the duties and authority given it by the Constitution, and that state governments have control of the rest.

I'm not rich, and I'm not a member of the Tea Party.

3. States Rights? Yes when it comes to having a say over a states resources and some other issues but we are Republic and there are federal laws that have to be uniform such as Imigration states cannot superseed or negate federal jurisdiction and laws unless there is an amendment to the Constitution?

The federal government has encroached more and more in recent years over the rights of the states, mostly by using the 'Interstate Commerce Clause' to justify this. In many cases, the Supreme Court has gone along with the gag. I'm against that. I favor the Jeffersonian model of federal authority over the Hamiltonian model.

4. Support for the Constitution? What does that mean be specific?? Our supreme court is supposed to do that but thier allowing Citizens United unlimited funding of political advertising by corporations and even foriegn goverments is totally agains what the founding fathers wanted. Governor of Montanna said the state elections are just now for sale.

It means what I said. I support the Constitution. All of it. I'm ignoring your rant.

5. Resistance to Social Change?? Be specific what are you against? We have seperation of church and state? You cannot legislate morality though it would seem we should when it comes to fair and equal treatment of all including women.

I am not being specific because I have nothing to be specific about. Social change is a pressure. Pressure requires resistance or it moves instantly. Instant change is often detrimental to society. The word 'conservative' itself means to conserve - to keep the status quo - to keep things as they are. While things do and must change, instant change can be as dangerous (or more dangerous) than no change. So the role of society is to provide those people who want change and push for it, and those who resist such change, to slow its progress. Both are necessary to a smoothly-functioning society.

Bill has not answered any of the specifics I gave him because he and others here are more interested in hit an run slam posts I only see complaining and me good you bad posts? Fires, Floods, Tornado's, Biblical disasters it would seem are upon us and December 2012 approaches. Does make you stop and ponder?

No, it does not make me stop and ponder. Ask me again in January of 2013.

 

[Tez3]

Not all the world has 'December', a good many places have other months, other dates and other years so whatever is supposed to happen in 'December 2012' is unlikely to. Biblical disaster, I don't think so, floods...if you are a believer in the 'Bible' then you know there is a promise that there will not be another flood to destroy the world, the rest of it can actually be put done to human error or nature. Mudslides for example happen most often when a hill is deforested, rivers flooding damaging housing etc is because people build on flood plains, fires damage housing etc again because people build too close to forests, moors etc. Tornados, well they've always been there haven't they, the damage again comes because people build towns and cities where the tornadoes are prevalent. No reason why people can't or shouldn't build where they want but you can't then blame these things on 'Biblical' disasters.

 

[pgsmith]

5. We have seperation of church and state?

Not the way you think we do, those words do not appear together ANYWHERE in the constitution, or any of the other founding documents.

I'm sorry sir, but that is a very misleading statement. While those exact words do not appear anywhere, it is extremely misleading of you to say that since Thomas Jefferson used those exact words to describe what they were attempting to provide for in the First Amendment. I think that Mr. Jefferson had a much better understanding of what they were trying to do when they wrote the Constitution than you do today. This is a very good example of how political parties (either one) attempt to change history to try and serve their own interests.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

 

[jks9199]

I'm sorry sir, but that is a very misleading statement. While those exact words do not appear anywhere, it is extremely misleading of you to say that since Thomas Jefferson used those exact words to describe what they were attempting to provide for in the First Amendment. I think that Mr. Jefferson had a much better understanding of what they were trying to do when they wrote the Constitution than you do today. This is a very good example of how political parties (either one) attempt to change history to try and serve their own interests.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Separation of church and state is really a separate thread -- but very briefly, it was never intended to be the separation of faith from state. The Founding Fathers were mostly Christians, of various sorts, many tending towards Deism. I don't think they ever foresaw the lengths that we see today. In fact, the Continental Congress opened with an invocation, and the Declaration of Independence speaks of rights endowed by a Creator. What was intended was the prevention of State favored, supported, or mandated religions. To the best of my knowledge, there is no mandated requirement of any religion, or none, for appointment or election to any office in the government. That doesn't mean that voters may not have their own, personal, religious test for a candidate; the individual voter is free to reject Romney for being LDS or Obama for not having picked a particular DC area church and pastor, or whoever for being a whatever.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Separation of church and state is really a separate thread -- but very briefly, it was never intended to be the separation of faith from state. The Founding Fathers were mostly Christians, of various sorts, many tending towards Deism. I don't think they ever foresaw the lengths that we see today. In fact, the Continental Congress opened with an invocation, and the Declaration of Independence speaks of rights endowed by a Creator. What was intended was the prevention of State favored, supported, or mandated religions. To the best of my knowledge, there is no mandated requirement of any religion, or none, for appointment or election to any office in the government. That doesn't mean that voters may not have their own, personal, religious test for a candidate; the individual voter is free to reject Romney for being LDS or Obama for not having picked a particular DC area church and pastor, or whoever for being a whatever.

+1 and QFT.

One need look no further than Jefferson's Bible to see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

And we have one Muslim Congressman (no, not Obama) who took his Oath of Office on a Koran. Which Koran? The one from Jefferson's Library, of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300075.html

Ellison will take the official oath of office along with the other incoming members in the House chamber, then use the Koran in his individual, ceremonial oath with new Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself," said Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert.

One person unlikely to be swayed by the book's illustrious history is Goode, who released a letter two weeks ago objecting to Ellison's use of the Koran. "I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in my district would prefer the use of the Bible," the Virginia Republican told Fox News, and then went on to warn about what he regards as the dangers of Muslims immigrating to the United States and Muslims gaining elective office.

Yeah, but what about a Koran that belonged to one of the greatest Virginians in history? Goode, who represents Jefferson's birthplace of Albemarle County, had no comment yesterday.

 

[Sukerkin]

And we have one Muslim Congressman (no, not Obama) who took his Oath of Office on a Koran. Which Koran? The one from Jefferson's Library, of course.

Now everyone whose been a while probably knows my personal views on organised religion (and they are not positive) but that, I think, says very good things about your nation and it's constitution :bows:.

 

[elder999]

Separation of church and state is really a separate thread -- but very briefly, it was never intended to be the separation of faith from state. The Founding Fathers were mostly Christians, of various sorts, many tending towards Deism.

Mostly true, but they were men of the age of Enlightenment as well=most of their attitudes about "religion" were extremely nuanced, and often ambivalent. WHen New York City was the capital of tghe country, Washinton would attend Trinity Episcopal Church, on Wall Street-you can see his personal pew preserved there, along with some of his and Martha's clothes-those things are all over New York State, BTW: George and Martha's clothes......anyway, Goerge would walk out of church just before the blessing of the Eucharist, because he believed it to be "mumbo jumbo": had a problem with the whole transubstantiation thing.

I don't even want to get into how John Adams felt about organized religion in general, and Catholicism in particular-look it up yourself.

I don't think they ever foresaw the lengths that we see today. In fact, the Continental Congress opened with an invocation, and the Declaration of Independence speaks of rights endowed by a Creator. What was intended was the prevention of State favored, supported, or mandated religions.

Absolutely, and Congress still starts each session with an invocation, though some congressman got extremely bent out of shape over a Hindu doing the invocation a few years ago.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no mandated requirement of any religion, or none, for appointment or election to any office in the government. That doesn't mean that voters may not have their own, personal, religious test for a candidate; the individual voter is free to reject Romney for being LDS or Obama for not having picked a particular DC area church and pastor, or whoever for being a whatever.

There was a time, early in our nation's history, though, when various states had laws against not only Indians and blacks voting, but Catholics and Jews. Seriously, lok it up.......

THere's nothing that prohibits a member of our government from making decisions based on religious convictions, though-at all.



ANd I'll be on my boat in the South Pacific for the latter part of December, 2012-maybe I'll ask you in 2013,Bill,and maybe I won't....:lol: