Democrats Move to Secure Loss in 2004 Presidental Elections

[Unregistered]

WoooooooHoooooooo!!!

Running on the Reverse Racism Ticket: Al Sharpton!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76178,00.html

Racism + No Tax Cuts = Lose! Go Dems Go!!!

WASHINGTON � Saying the Democratic Party needs to expand its political base, the Rev. Al Sharpton formally filed papers Tuesday seeking the party's nomination for the 2004 presidential race.

The 48-year-old civil rights leader said he was the only candidate who is "anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-tax cut across the board." Sharpton, who is black, said he would reach out to disaffected voters, including Latinos, blacks and young people.

"The Democratic Party cannot win unless it expands its base, unless it goes out and gets those that have been disaffected," Sharpton said at a news conference after filing the papers at the Federal Election Commission.

Sharpton, who has unsuccessfully run for mayor and the U.S. Senate, has been outspoken on many local and national issues, most notably on police brutality in the highly publicized cases of Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima in New York City, and the U.S. military bombing on the tiny Puerto Rican island of Vieques.

Last week, Sharpton charged that too many presidential candidates are "rich white men" who don't understand the makeup of America or the world community, and that the country is "going in the wrong direction."

Senate Democrats running for president or considering a run include Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina, and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Rep. Dick Gephardt, of Missouri, also is likely to run. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was the first Democrat to declare his candidacy.

[Lexington_Steele]

I am voting for whoever will actually do something about campaign finance reform.

(I wonder if Al Sharpton even knows what that is)

[Sputty]

Lieberman will probably get it. Al Sharpton would be nice for a few reasons. The dems are obviously going to lose unless Bush gets LA nuked. I think Lieberman isn't a bad candidate though. He's the most known and probably most 'experienced'.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Sputty
The dems are obviously going to lose unless Bush gets LA nuked.

Why do you think democrats are assured defeat? They had the popular vote last election. If it wasn't for Ralph Nader we would have a democratic president. I am not saying they are going to win, but I don't think they are assured defeat.

[Sputty]

Well, too many gun ho people will side with Bush just to be nice basically. If the democrats won I'd laugh because of hjow surprising it would be.

[Lexington_Steele]

I don't see how it would be supprising. In a campaign, bush will be attacked with things like an economic decline, move from a budget surpluss to a budget deficit, lack of campaign finance reform, enron and bush's own similar practices with his own company. Comparisons will be made as to where America was before Bush and after and I don't think it will look favorably on Bush. Regardless of whether these thing are really bush's fault, he will still be held accountable by the American people.

Also, what hard facts can you really bring up that really say something positive about Bush's performance. When I asked in another thread why people like bush, I wasn't getting the types of answers that could be touted during a campaign except maybe his foreign policy (which people are beginning to see as a covering for the declining economy).

If Bush wants to see another four years he better hope the economy takes a sharp upwards turn in the next year.

Bush will be a one termer, just like his father.

[Unregistered]

Mid term elections were a definate sign the people are sick of the Dems. Liberman needs to fucking die. Him + Al (Tipper) Gore were the censorship ticket since they have both run crusades against free speech in music in their carrers.

Vote for Liberman. The man that knew so little about the music he wanted to ban he thought Marylin Manson was a chick.

Al Sharpton is an even bigger disgrace to Dr. Kings Legacy then Jessie Jackson. If he thinks young people are going to vote for him he better stop smoking crack again.

[Sputty]

In a way that'd be good. Get some more diplomatic people in office to handle Korea especially.

[Unregistered]

Like Clinton who created the problem buy giving our Nuclear secrets to China, and not enforcing any of the treaties we had with North Korea? That will sure help a lot :rolleyes:

When thinking of politics you have to keep in mind that a president spends most his time in office (the first term) sifting through the mess created by the previous president.

Osama, and North Korea are both problems that stem from the Dems lack of action.

[Sputty]

Clinton negotiating the shutting down of the nuclear plant in Korea. And Osama couldn't have been actioned against..What could have he done? Invade all of the middle east?

[Lexington_Steele]

No one is going to vote for sharpton, however it is interesting (hillarious) news that he plans on running.

[HotDogTommy]

I got a question. How come Clinton was in court for a large part of his career as pres with stuff like Whitewater and Monica, but no one has even raised the issue of investigating Bush AND Cheney for their shady business practices? The same ones, I might add, that Bush was so angry about and doubled punishment for after Enron and co. Seems like the Dems sorta dropped the ball there. If the Republicans gave them hell, why not give it back? If Bush went to trial and faced impeachment like Clinton did, it would make a difference come election time.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
When thinking of politics you have to keep in mind that a president spends most his time in office (the first term) sifting through the mess created by the previous president.

Osama, and North Korea are both problems that stem from the Dems lack of action.

This may be idealisticly correct, however you need to convince the voters of that.

btw Osama and North Korea predate Clinton. (Wasn't it Reagan that Solidified support for Osama and the Taliban by providing them US advisors and weapons?)

[Sputty]

Well, hard to say. say it's a conspiracy and somehow the aliens are profitting from this. Hard to say though.

[Sputty]

Also, the Republicans seem to disagree on a lot of issues, which is never good.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
Vote for Liberman. The man that knew so little about the music he wanted to ban he thought Marylin Manson was a chick.

And we know how wonderful Republicans are for funding the arts. [/sarcasm]

[Lexington_Steele]

NOTE TO HAMMA!!!!! :wave:

Remeber you can avoid a good portion of this by merely asking my questions to the developers.

[MrVicchio]

Morass this thread is in, lets break it down SHALL we:

1. Bush and Enron.... Please people, do some HW and research this not quote Terry McAlluiff (Sp, I know BAH on that). Bush YES, did have dealings with Enron.. BUT all the ENRON crap was going on I.E. the accounting morass BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT. And when Enron came asking Bush to help them, he told em to F-OFF. Now, please tell me how Bush is at fault for that..

2. Bush and Cheneys "Shady" business practices.. hmm again, know the subject further then the DNC please. Bush and Cheney BOth have multiple times been looked at by the Feds, and both times what they did was legal... what more do you want? Condemn a business man for using a legal loophole that allows him to do something legally as a criminal? WTF?

3. Osama, the taliban and Reagan. C'mon good lord, this is another crap line. The USA provided lagistical support to the rebels but NEVER EVER did Americans actually go into Afganistan, they stayed in Pakistan and gave missles and bought stuff off the Freedom Fighters in their war on the Soviets, much the same way the USSR backed the N.Vietnamese in that war.. its called how the world works. Do yourself a favor, drop that line too, makes you look uneducated.

From Lex-

don't see how it would be supprising. In a campaign, bush will be attacked with things like an economic decline, move from a budget surpluss to a budget deficit, lack of campaign finance reform, enron and bush's own similar practices with his own company.

The Economy was DECLINING BEFORE BUSH ENTERED OFFICE. No reasonable individual with a clue about the issues is going to say the decline is his fault, again, facts count, and the fact is it went into decline under CLINTON.

Lack of campaign finance reform.. hello what country do you line and what news do you get there.. Bush signed McCain-Fiengold into law.... .... .... ....

Comparisons will be made as to where America was before Bush and after and I don't think it will look favorably on Bush. Regardless of whether these thing are really bush's fault, he will still be held accountable by the American people.

Before we werent in a war, Before we hadn't seen 9/11, before we had the Tech Bubble...

Bush is trying to pass some serious tax cuts, those go in, you are going to see a lot of people look at the amount o fmoney they are keeping and you watch, they economy will continue on the up and up. It IS in fact moving, albiet slowly in an upward trend. Yes the stock market is slumping, but the overall economy is growing, and that is what counts, PERIOD.



Clinton negotiating the shutting down of the nuclear plant in Korea. And Osama couldn't have been actioned against..What could have he done? Invade all of the middle east?

Yeah, Clinton did such a WONDERFUL job there, negotiated what was a pointless treaty with a bunch of liars and Bush called em on it.. thats a minus to ole Slick Willy not a plus.

As for Osama.. Hello.. let us recall a few Oasam bin Laden exploits Prior to Bush Comming into office SHALL WE?

First WTC attacks
USS Cole
The Kenya and Tanzinia Bombings

Lets not forget that Sudan OFFERED to give Osama to the USA and CLINTON said no.. What did Clinton do... Hmm he fired off some cruise missles at an Asprin Factory and hit a few deserted Taliban/Al-Queda Camps in the Desert.. wow, man he sure tried to stop Osama every way he could..

And last but not least, the Popular vote line.. HAHAHAHHAHAHA the System worked! Amazing.. Know how the system works people, and realize that the Popular Vote matters not one whit. Not at all.

[MrVicchio]

Originally posted by Sputty
Also, the Republicans seem to disagree on a lot of issues, which is never good.

Yeah, and The dems agree 100% on everything.. they cant even agree whether to go LEFT or CENTER.. :rolleyes:

[Unregistered]

Lex - Funding the Arts, and Trying to prevent artists from making Art is two totally diffrent things.

Liberman wanted Marylin Manson as well as a few other artists music banned. As in there will be no more music.

Tipper Gore was the head of the PMRC and lead a crusade against free speech durring the 80's

The Clinton/Lewenski thing was a bunch of bullshit, and should never have gone as far as it did. Trust me I was not please with the Republicans wasting my tax money on it.

All bussinessman/politician means have shady dealings. That's how they get where they are, but Shady does not ammount to illeagle like what Kenneth Lay and Co did at Enron. If Bush has commited any crimes you can be assured that the Dems will try to impeach him.

[MrVicchio]

Personally, I wanna see Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi as the Dems Ticket in 2004. Can we say 1984 all over again? That would be so much fun, really it would be.

[Unregistered]

Funny would be the Al Sharpton/Harry Bellefonte ticket.

[Bighoss]

I honestly have to say that we haven't had a real strong president since WWII. Politcal parties are perhaps the must retarded thing in politics EVER. its like 2 governments in one country and both work against eachother...How stupid is that? If this country was gonna be saved Ross Peroe would have helped. Instead of holding up pretty pictures and using big words and not answer questions directly he talked about America like a business. It was perfect he knew what he was doing he used statistical facts and charts that were clear. The only problem was that he made to much sense ! Sadly common sense is now illegal or racist.

Here's a funny fact George Washington warned this country before he stepped down to not get involved with the rest of the world and get entangled in alliances with Europe and other places across sea's. Well we did and its fucked us over. He actually also warned us about political parties he said those would screw us up too.

So you can kiss my ass political parties:nazi: :nazi: :nazi:

[MrVicchio]

That would be even better, cept then they could claim America is racist and demand reperations...

[Sputty]

No countries that I can think of have had a strong leader in awhile. I mean the "western" nations.

[Navaron]

As I opened this thread I though, o no, I'm gonna be here 30 mins, confronting all these misconceptions, however, good ol' MrVicchio got it done before me. I would like to explain Campaign Finance Reform in a way that applies to us.

THe law states that you can't place a politically oriented ad with in XX(60-90) number of days of an election. The new catch phrase is special interest group. A special interest group is a group of people with an interest in something. Pretty simple. Examples of this are, green peace, NRA, PETA, pro/anti lifers, - hell almost anything.

So these groups can't place an ad informing others of their opinion and position, and that of the candidates. This not only violates the right to free speach, it violates the right of assembly. Let me explain.

Why do people gather together to place an advertising campaign on tv? Two reasons, 1 - they all have similar views they want to express, 2 - they don't have enough money individually to do so. So they ban together and donate money for this cause. Nothing wrong there, hell the constitution and BoR says you can do that.

However, if wacko Ted Turner feels like placing an ad, he can - cause he's loaded, and no one can refute him, unless they are individually rich. You know why? Because limiting the speach of an individual violates the First Amendment. Doesn't seem fair does it? The group no longer has the right of assembly to use their free speach, but the wealthy individual does.

What do you care? Here's a real life example. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, (Ex VP candidate), is highly anti video game. He want's all video games with a T or higher rating to be removed from shelves where minors can see them. He also wants to fine all institutions who display these games, and advertise or support them, heavily. I'm sure I'm not the only one who reads PC Gamer, CGW, or any other video game site. If his laws were to pass, they would all go out of business, and we wouldn't know if a game was good or not (hell we wouldn't know if it was even coming out). Sure, he's an extremist no big deal. It'll never happen right. Hopefully.

But let's say it does, and more importantly, he takes Planetside (with it's awful violence and rampant racism) as a whipping horse. PSU will fight him right? Sure. I would, would you? Well if two of us say yeah, bingo we're a special interest group. SO let's say we all band together, gather up 200,000 dollars to run a nation wide newspaper campaign....we might as well spend it on lighter fluid, cause we'll all have alot of useless computers real soon. Our money can buy the ads, just not display them, we might influence the election with our dirty "soft money" from our evil special interest group. We can't display that we as gamers are normal people, and that this guy is nuts.

Hell, let's say we're lucky enough to run an ad the day before the ad ban....he still has 60-90 days to spout his nonsense unopposed unless the other candidate happens to know what the hell is going on, and if you take a quick scan...they're all old as hell.

We, as a special interest group, are evil, and are trying to corrupt America. Thank God for CFR, I don't want to help corrupt America. Thank you Senators MCCain and Feingold for shirking the CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS, and thank you for taking away my right to free speech and assembly, because *IF* I had those, God only knows what hell I would unleash....I mean, I wouldn't want to contribute to the world wildlife foundation...or National Geographic at that..

(Ironically, all the violence and rampant sex they are trying to ban in video games, they seem not to care about in Hollywood where most of their campaign money comes from....convinient huh?)

[MrVicchio]

I thought everyone had figured that one out by now.. Besides, the Supreme Court is gonna shoot that Anti-American, anti-freedom and unconstitutional POS out of the law books before too long. THATS why Bush signed it BTW. He could have rejected it, but he knew that if he did, the Dems would just harp on him and make that a huge nasty debate for the 2002 election, instead, he let it slip through and when the Court say "Get this POS garbage of the law books" He can laugh as the Dems scramble to explain to the American people why they were so for restricting free speech.

[Unregistered]

The Dems have always been against Free Speach.

Democrats think that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that every facest of our lives needs to be controld by the government. What we say, What we hear, What we see should all be regulated.

Republicans think that government needs to stay out of our private lives and that as Adults we are able to take care of ourselves and make our own decisions without government interfearence.

I know that is a simplistic compairison, but it is the basics of each parties philosphy.

[Sputty]

Luckily, I don't have democrats or republicns but dozens of other parties inculding the sepertists(How can you participate in a government's system you are against?) and the communists. Also, Conservatives, Liberals, "Allince"(They failed hilariously, super pro religious was their first leader). And many others. It's funny how many there can be.

[Unregistered]

Are you from Soviet Kanukistan (Canada)?

[Navaron]

I realize that Bush signed it hopin the SC would shoot it down, but that's damn risky. I wouldn't trust them farther than I can throw them. The analogy was also for people who are pro CFR or think it's a good thing.

[Sputty]

Ys I am from Canada and I may vote Communist as a joke. The liberals have failed me and the other parties are too...religious..for me...And I hate the separatists. Can Hamma start a Canadian political party called CanadianPolitics-universe? I have no one to vote for....THEY ALL SUCK..

[Lexington_Steele]

Whoa there Mr Viccho.

You seem to be missing the poiint of this discussion that had to do with the election. There is a big difference beteen truth and political process.

You may have all these explanations why Bush isn't responsable for the economy, however that isn't going to do shite in an election.

The democratic adverts are going to compare the economy when Clinton left office and when Bush's term is up, period. How will that make Bush look. That is what the average voter is going to see.

You can say the enron thing was happening during clintons administration (this type of thing has been happening for decades), however the voter saw it blow up during Bush's administration.

You can say Bush and Cheaney were not found guilty of any crimese but does that mean the voter will feel nothing wrtong was done?

We were not discussing enron, we were not discussing the details of campaign finance reform, and we are not discussing the economy. We were talking about why democrats have a real chance at winning in the election.

[MrVicchio]

Liquid Lex..

You miss something Fundimental here... The Voters are not sheep to be herded by the Liberals. You say what the Dems are gonna do.. and you say it like the the Republicans can only sit ont he sidelines shaking thier heads and admit defeat...

I say the Voters are more then capable of making up thier own minds when presented bith sides of the issues. The days of sheep voters is rapidly dimminishing part in thanks to the internet. That is a good source of information for the average voter to look to to find the Truth for themselves. Out and Out lies, deceptions and half truths wont have the same polarizing effect they had 20 years ago... People are MORE then capable of finding the truth for themselves.

Anyone that just hears a political ad and believes it is a sheep and shouldn't vote. Anyone that doesn't bother to research the claims of any group, is a sheep and shouldn't vote. I don't care if after you have looked at all the information and decided DNC over RNC.. thats fine, but atleast look at the facts. And the FACTS are on the Republicans side on all the issues you have brought up... Thats what I am saying.

I trust people, do you?

[Sputty]

I don't. Most people are too stupid too pcik a smart guy. That's why all the presidents are super friendly now. "In-touch" with the people seemingly.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
..........We were not discussing enron, we were not discussing the details of campaign finance reform, and we are not discussing the economy. We were talking about why democrats have a real chance at winning in the election.

You were correct right up until the point you said "We were talking about why democrats have a real chance at winning in the election", which if you read the title of this thread is the exact opposite of what we are talkiong about.

We are talking about how Al Sharpton has no chance in Hell of winning the election, but like most democrats you have derailed the real issue and turned it into the complete opposite of what it is.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
You were correct right up until the point you said "We were talking about why democrats have a real chance at winning in the election", which if you read the title of this thread is the exact opposite of what we are talkiong about.

We are talking about how Al Sharpton has no chance in Hell of winning the election, but like most democrats you have derailed the real issue and turned it into the complete opposite of what it is.
My off topic message was an attempt to stop this train before it left the station.

So are you really in the mood for a 10 - 12 page discussion of campaign finance reform, a 10-12 discussion of what really happened with enron Enron, what needs to be changes and Bush and Cheaney's own shady bussiness practices, or a 10-12 page discussion of how Democrats and Republicans have been damaging to music how it was a republican who did the single most damaging thing to music writers and composers in American history?

[Sputty]

Yeah, you should probably all stop now and consider that you've all said your points multiple times before and that you have made your position clear. Stop the fight! Peace!

[Navaron]

I'm up for pwning some fools in a CFR debate.

[Sputty]

Well, I tried...Hmmmm...Better close the shop and board the windows....There's trouble a-brewin'

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
I trust people, do you?

No I do not trust people.

Isn't seeing greed as the great motivator, yet believing in the goodness of humanity a bit of an oxymoron?

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I'm up for pwning some fools in a CFR debate.
Just bring it.

[Unregistered]

Once again your skirting the issue at hand.

This thread is not about Music, Campeign Reform, It's not about Bush or Cheny.

It's about Al Sharpton's bid for the Presidency.

Once again you have demonstrated how the Democrats ignore what is being talked about and pervert every subject into their own little Anti Republican Retoric.

Please get back on Topic and tell me how Al Sharpton: Democratic Party Hopeful will save America, and this time try not to drag the Evil Republicans, and Kenneth Lay into the disscussion. Get your own "How the Republicans will lose the election" thread if you want to impart your flawed thinking on the masses.

I'll point out valid arguments and you can skirt the issues. It'll be fun.

[Lexington_Steele]

Btw I am not a democrat.

[Navaron]

If you wanna rumble with CFR (or the so called incumbent protection act), then refute anything I said earlier. We can start there. Or you can cut you losses now, and bow out.;)

[Lexington_Steele]

Nav, how about something very simple.

Just because that specific act is not the answer does not mean that there does not need to be campaign finance reform.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Btw I am not a democrat.

Your still a pinko libral commie no matter how you spin it.

;)












(that was an atempt at humor, so don't flame me. If you find it insulting sorry.)

[Lexington_Steele]

:love:

[Navaron]

Obviously. The point is that, limiting anyones free speech for any reason is an abhoration. Sure the current system blows, but like Vic said earlier, voters are smart enough to figure out what's going on. If they see a dirty campaign, they know it when they see it. If Bud light is sponsering Janet Reno, and has a big ass Spring 2003 election party, then people will catch on.

CFR in general is nice, but it's like saying no one should be hungry. Well duh. I wish every person was honest and not influenced by any factor except their own sense of right and wrong.

This CFR policy is an abomination. I am ashamed that my president ever signed it, regardless of the anticipated outcome. I don't buy that whole thing about how the dem's would be all over him with "He's bought by dirty money". When this thing gets shot down, all of the headlines will say 1 of 2 things -
1"President Bush CFR law was nullified due to it's unconstitutionality" - successfully pinning the blame on him or
2 "The bill would have passed had Bush accepted it in it's original form". Obviously not true, but thats where the blame will go.

[Sputty]

:eek: Ok, I have some rifles. We could go and kill as many politicians as possible and destroy their corrupt government! Who's with me?!!?!......


...Anyone?.....There's free donuts...

[MrVicchio]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
No I do not trust people.

Isn't seeing greed as the great motivator, yet believing in the goodness of humanity a bit of an oxymoron?

That right there is the Difference between a Conservative and a
liberal.

Liberals trust no one but he government

Conservatives trust people.

You people make me ill.

[Sputty]

Again, you're generalizing. Just because one person doesn't trust people doesn't mean everyone that has anything to do with him doesn't...

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
You people make me ill.

Nice touch making a personal attack against me.

However I am not going to travel that route in a public forum like this.

[Airlift]

Democrat == Republican == A bunch of white-collar criminals that are interested only in slicing themselves off the biggest chunk of power possible. All pundits and mouth-pieces make me ill with their bullshiat promises and phoney points of distinction.

[Hamma]

I am going to write myself in. :D

[Airlift]

I'll vote for you Hamma, but only the first term. once the Big Everything lobby gets its claws on you, you're a goner.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
That right there is the Difference between a Conservative and a
liberal.

Liberals trust no one but he government

Conservatives trust people.


I see many conservatives as self serving. I have said it before, big bussiness has shown us time and time again that they are unable to regulate themselves. They will exploit their employees and pollute the environment if it improves the profit margin.

How am I supposed to trust someone to look out for global interest when they are focused on their personal interests.

Are you an advocate for the legalization of Drugs? That is government invading our lives. Don't you trust people to make their own decisions while they are high?

Are you an advocate for repealing all criminal law. That is government invading our lives? Don't you trust people not to commit crimes?

Are you pro life? Isn't that government invading a womans body? Isn't that a traditional conservative view?

Oversimplifications such as "government = bad" are garbage and you know it.

Do you really feel that I pull my views out of thin air and they are without merit? Are my concerns really unimportant and invalid?

I appologise if people with a different point of view than you "make you ill."

[Unregistered]

I just came from www.democrats.org the official headquaters of the DNC, and I could not find where it promissed me a better future. I really looked around the site quite a bit to find what they claim the party stands for.

I could find there goals, but not how they expected to go about achiving any of them. All I could find was a bunch of Mud being tossed at Bush.

Then I went to www.rnc.org and had no problem finding out what the Republicans are Doing right now to help the country.

About the the only thing i could find on the Dem site was them talking about Bush's plan to slash taxes, but they presented no evidence to support that their plan was batter. Infact they did not even present a plan at all.

Now that the subject of Taxes is brought up I wanted to make you all aware of where the Dems get their money. It might surprise you....

The biggest supporters of the Democrats are the richest 1% of the nation. People that make over 500K a year. They can afford to be very giving and are ok with higher taxes.

Now the people that contribute the most to the Republican party are the richest 5% of Americans. People who make over 150K a year (this includes married couples that have a combined income of 150k).

Currently the extreme Rich are taxed in the same bracket as the the family with the combined income of 150K or better. Is this fair that they have to sholder the same burdon as a Millionare? To the Dems it is. To the Republicans it is not.

It is not acceptable for me to be forced to pay a higher percentage of my wages to support people that do not make as much as me. I have bills to. Rather then help them to make more, the Dems want me to have less. How is that fair?

I am in favor of a tax system that requires everyone to pay the same percentage of their wages no matter how much money they make. I should not be penalized by the government for my hard work.

[MrVicchio]

No, that was no personal attack. I just said you people make me ill. If that is a vicious bit of slander then your skins thinner then paper.

[Unregistered]

Settle Down Children. This is a Civil Political Debate, not 3rd grade recess.

[MrVicchio]

YEAH, if it WAS recess I would stick a boogey on you!

[Unregistered]

Well I love a good debate, but I hate personal attacks and the fun stops once someones feelings get hurt.

know what I mean?

[MrVicchio]

Yeah, I agreee.. I gueess the ill thing was too far...

Thats what I get ofr reading 8 political forums AND comming in here gets me..

My appologies to anyone offended.

[MrVicchio]

BTW That line was directed at no one person, but rather at a group of people that follow one particular lin of thinking. Anyone that took that personally.. wasn't aimed at you.

[mistled]

I'd like to start by saying that I want Al Sharpton & Nancy Pelosi to run in the next elections as a team. They would personify everything that is currently wrong with the Democratic party without even trying hard. I wish three people could run so that they could add Tom Daschle to their little party. I would love to spend the election ripping on these three.

Having said that, let me get on to Lex's statements from earlier:
Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
I see many conservatives as self serving. I have said it before, big bussiness has shown us time and time again that they are unable to regulate themselves. They will exploit their employees and pollute the environment if it improves the profit margin.

How am I supposed to trust someone to look out for global interest when they are focused on their personal interests.

I know that this is practically impossible, but in all honesty, the federal government has no legal right to make the businesses do anything unless they are commiting acts that are a direct threat to the security of the United States. Other than that, it's all up to the individual States to do whatever their populations will let them get away with.

Are you an advocate for the legalization of Drugs? That is government invading our lives. Don't you trust people to make their own decisions while they are high? Drugs can only be legally banned under the idea that someone under their influence is much more likely to hurt someone. It then falls under the classification of the federal government being able to protect it's citizens. I know it's a stretch, but that's all they have. Honestly, even that is no good sense by banning drugs, you are punishing people for crimes that they have not commited, which violates the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Other than that, as far as the Federal Government goes, yes I am. What the State governments do is their own business and if they choose to ban certain drugs, then fine.

Are you an advocate for repealing all criminal law. That is government invading our lives? Don't you trust people not to commit crimes? Criminal law, again, falls under the protection of a country's citizens and therefore, is allowable under the Constitution. But most criminal law is State and local law, and our discussion hasn't really extended to them, so I'll stop on that subject.

Are you pro life? Isn't that government invading a womans body? Isn't that a traditional conservative view? No, it's not the invading of a woman's body, actually. It's a person killing another. The government is merely protecting a future citizen in this case. As far as the biology behind this, it has been proven that a baby has seperate DNA from it's mother at the moment of conception and is therefore, legally, an entire seperate entity.

This all comes down to what is allowable in the US Constitution, and the truth is that not much of anything is allowed except the defense of the nation. Each state has it's own Constitution and much of this nonsense that the Federal government does illegally could, in fact, be legally done by the States, depending on how their individual Constitutions are written.

mistled

- And please don't call out Navarone on CFR. Nav, go start another thread if you like. :p

[Airlift]

can only be legally banned under the idea that someone under their influence is much more likely to hurt someone. It then falls under the classification of the federal government being able to protect it's citizens.

I got here late, are we still talking about SUVs?

[Lexington_Steele]

Mistled, the streching the meaning of "protecting its citizens" has thus created the old slippery slope situation.

Since this clause has and can be streched, it is a matter of where you draw the line. It is a matter of what you consider protection of citizens. Some consider abortion to be none of governments bussiness, some do. Obviosly there is a "pick and choose" of which elements of government we desire. It is clearly not a simple matter of less government = better government.

I would say that any regulation of bussines in order to protect citizens would fit into this "protecting its citizens" clause.