Quote: Originally Posted by anoncompboy I did not accuse you of advocating 100% freedom, in fact I wasnt referring to you at all, I was just using that to make my point. If I was referring to you, I would of quoted you. Sorry for any confusion. I just think law enforcement could be given a little more power. That's all. Whatever makes for a safer nation, but not at the expense of the innocent. This thread has nothing to do with morality. Atleast, I didnt mention it. You brought it up when you mentioned the halftime breast. Responding to your posts reminds me of software debugging - if you refuse to respond to my posts then so be it.

[FONT=&quot]

If you post in a specific thread posted by a specific person, then any general statement can be construed as a referral to the posters persona.


The laws on the books do not deter a large portion of the population.
Why do you think that more laws would be a bigger deterrent?

Quote: Originally Posted by anoncompboy The more "freedom" we have and the looser our laws get, the more crime we have. Isn't more power to the government on the left wing agenda? Shouldnt you be agreeing with me here?

That's what the second amendment is for: if law enforcement isn't able to protect you, then YOU protect you. That's how I see it anyways.

More power to the government isn't just on the "left wing agenda"...both sides want more power to a centralized government. They say it's to "stop terrorists", but if they were so serious about doing so they wouldn't leave the borders wide open. This is BOTH sides i'm pointing the finger at. The elected officials...i'm not blaming any one side because ALL sides/parties/individuals in government who are in charge of such a thing are responsible for it.

Lets drop the partisan bull**** and focus on the issues instead, ok?

Just an observation here , but

If you dont have both a left and right wing , yer shyte aint gonna fly

Quote: Originally Posted by Ator Lets drop the partisan bull**** and focus on the issues instead, ok?

That's why I liked this thread from the start, not about "Teams" or "sides" but about all of us (Rob) expressing our (Rob's) individual beliefs on certain subjects in an open and receptive way.

Quote: Originally Posted by HigHTecHReDNecK Just an observation here , but If you dont have both a left and right wing , yer shyte aint gonna fly

Hahaha , thats an awesome analogy.

Quote: Originally Posted by anoncompboy I just think law enforcement could be given a little more power. That's all. Whatever makes for a safer nation, but not at the expense of the innocent.

Not to continue an arguement, (which this post may do) but exactly what powers would you give law enforcement? What other power would you be able to give them that wouldn't violate the Bill of Rights, namely the rights to fair trial and (to not have) cruel punishment?

Quote: Originally Posted by Ator That's what the second amendment is for: if law enforcement isn't able to protect you, then YOU protect you. That's how I see it anyways.

You know, I actually started off disagreeing with you, Ator. However, I've done a lot of research on the Second Amendment in the past couple of days, and I have to say that your statement -- succinct as it is -- is about as accurate as one can get.

The arguments for and against guns / weapons / arms vis a vis the Second Amendment stem entirely from its poor wording: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This statement has interpretations on both sides of the field, and many locations in between. The two polar opposites being:
1. You can carry guns all you want, it says so in the 2nd Amendment (a factual error)
2. The 2nd Amendment only allows you to carry guns if you're in the millitia (a fallacy)

No formal agreement on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been established by the United States Law. Many lawyers and judges have made interpretations, and they tend to fall somewhere beween these two polar opposites. However, one of the things that has been upheld since the late 1700's is that an individual has the right to *defend* him or herself in instances where the legal authorities charged with their defence fail to do so; this applies not only to defending one's home, but also to defending one's rights under the oppression of tyranny, and takes into account that one must "bear arms" in order to do so.

Just FYI.

-godling

Quote: Originally Posted by Gzim What are your views on Israel as an ally? Do you think the fact that we need an ally in the middle east outweighs the (possible) crimes against the Palestinians?

Unfortunately, my answer to this question is not a very "politically correct" response. However, I'll give you my honest opinion.

The Israelis need to move forward and allow the Palestinian people to form their own state (even though Palestine was never a nation before but a Biblical reference). The excuse that the existance of a Palestinian state would threaten the security of Israel is nothing but a form of religious-based racism. Yes, Israel has been the target of several terrorist attacks over the years carried out by such religious extremist groups such as Hamas; however, they are not allowing the creation of a Hamas state, but rather a Palestinian state.

The hard-liners that control Knesset are using the terrorist attacks as an excuse. That is very much like myself judging all Americans based upon the likes of David Koresh, Marshall Applegate, Tim McVeigh, David Duke, and the Ku Klux Klan. The religious hatred must stop and it has to start somewhere. Waiting for the other side to blink is going to do nothing but cause more death.

Perhaps they should take a lesson from IDF General Moshe Dayan.

Rob

Quote: Originally Posted by godling Actually, Rob, I've got a perspective for you and I'm curious about your take on it: Currently, the government is divided into three branches: Legislative (Congress), Executive (White House) and Judicial (Supreme Court). In theory, there is supposed to be a seperation of powers, such that a branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government. However, I feel that the method we have used to build the government may be flawed -- the Executive branch is populated by those who came from the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch is vetted by both the Executive and the Legislative branches. Therefore, each one is beholden to the other for their positions. Add to that the party seniority issue, where one party holds a majority of all three branches -- the Republicans coming strongly to mind, at present -- then where are the checks and balances? The party system is the root of the flaw -- by creating formal alliances between governing officials, we create officials who effectively have more power than their due rights (Seniority and Minority Leaders, for example), as well as the potential to have a President who is not only backed by a majority control of the Legislative branch, but is able to nominate and get approved members of the Judicial branch. Thoughts? -godling

What more can I say? You've hit the nail right on the head. This has been an issue with American politics ever since it was created over 200 years ago.

It's called many things, but it all boils down to party nepotism. We've had very few men in government that empowered others who didn't share their views to positions of authority. President Theordore Roosevelt was one of them along with my most admired President. They put in people who they thought could do the job, not their campaign contributors, high school buddies, or even (heaven forbid) their own attorney to the Supreme Court.

The system needs to be modified. Rather than requiring a simple majority, they need to increase the amount of 'aye' votes needed to secure a confirmation. As it stands right now, the political party that rules the Executive branch also controls a majority in the Legislative branch. The Executive branch could nominate nearly anyone they like (and did) and party politics would dictate that they will vote among party lines. It's easy to tell a television reporter that the minority party is holding up the business of government, stating that each nominee deserves an "up or down" vote. Well, as my niece would say, "NO DUH!!!" Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

The amount of 'aye' votes needed for a confirmation needs to be increased to a bare minimum of 70 votes. This will ensure that each nominee submitted to the Senate will be neither ultra conservative or ultra liberal (at face value...Justice Warren proved President Eisenhower wrong in the end). Balance must be brought to the system. If the pendulem were to swing too far in either direction, this nation stands to suffer from great harm.

...and that's all I've got to say 'bout that.

Rob

I'm not insulted at all. Your response was very interesting and thought provoking.

Not sure if this has been addressed already, but "If you sir, are elected, what will you do about the current situation in Iran?"

EDIT: Actually, you kind of dodged the question, I was asking about Israel as an ally, is it worth being associated with Israel with all the accusations of "genocide"?

Just as an FYI...if you haven't voted yet, you can still put me in as a write-in candidate.

Rob

Before I do that, I just have one question: How would you fix the economy?

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob Just as an FYI...if you haven't voted yet, you can still put me in as a write-in candidate. Rob

Well I was going to vote for you....but then I saw that you declined to comment on the aurora issue....I simply can't respect a man who refuses to comment on such a major issue.





In all honesty though, you're probably too intelligent for the internet

Quote: Originally Posted by DickNervous Before I do that, I just have one question: How would you fix the economy?

Free lemon meraigne pie for everyone!

No, seriously, there are a few fixes that I would institute. First and foremost would be to abolish short selling. The buying and selling of stocks that you don't even own yet is too risky to allow it to continue. Other than that, there is nothing that is going to fix the economy short of nationalizing every bank with an interest on Wall Street. That in and of itself is socialism, which BOTH of the candidates are advocating and condoning at the moment. What the hell do you think the $700 billion bailout is?

Nope, we just have to let the economy ride out the course. Will people lose their houses? Yes. Am I unfeeling about that? Yes. Should the government help them out? No. Why? People need to accept financial responsibility. One thing that I would do is to get rid of variable interest rate loans, which got those people into trouble in the first place. If you're going to take on that much debt, you need to know what your payments are going to be.

Other than those two things (abolishing both short selling and variable interest rate home loans), not much of anything.

Rob

Quote: Originally Posted by eascarface Well I was going to vote for you....but then I saw that you declined to comment on the aurora issue....I simply can't respect a man who refuses to comment on such a major issue. In all honesty though, you're probably too intelligent for the internet

O.K., the Aurora program. It was...

• Windows Media Player 11 for Windows Vista
• A link layer communications protocol for use on point-to-point serial links.
• A recon spy plane capable of hypersonic flight developed with alien technology found in Roswell, NM.
• A pen company in Italy.

Take your pick. Please be a little more specific in which Aurora you are talking about.

Rob

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob Free lemon meraigne pie for everyone! No, seriously, there are a few fixes that I would institute. First and foremost would be to abolish short selling. The buying and selling of stocks that you don't even own yet is too risky to allow it to continue. Other than that, there is nothing that is going to fix the economy short of nationalizing every bank with an interest on Wall Street. That in and of itself is socialism, which BOTH of the candidates are advocating and condoning at the moment. What the hell do you think the $700 billion bailout is? Nope, we just have to let the economy ride out the course. Will people lose their houses? Yes. Am I unfeeling about that? Yes. Should the government help them out? No. Why? People need to accept financial responsibility. One thing that I would do is to get rid of variable interest rate loans, which got those people into trouble in the first place. If you're going to take on that much debt, you need to know what your payments are going to be. Other than those two things (abolishing both short selling and variable interest rate home loans), not much of anything. Rob

Rob.......I would agree with most of that except for the loan and credit issue. They need to regulate how much credit (credit cards) a person can get and the regulate what they can charge for interest. What gets people in a lot of trouble is getting many cards, running them up and then the banks raise the interest rate up to 26%. Now, couple that with a mortgage payment and car loan, that spells doom. These banks push these cards through, don't care how much that person already has as far as credit goes, then expects them to pay. There has to be responsibility on both sides. Sure, the people applying for those cards should know what they can handle and most do otherwise they wouldn't push the cards like they do. But, one thing the banks have to realize is sometimes people run into situations beyond their control like job loss or expenditures that come up. With the job market the way it is right now, if a person losses his/hers job, that person could be in for rough times trying to keep up on their bills and unless they've saved for at least 6-12 months to cover their expenses, they're screwed and then they must file for a bankruptcy or just let the bill go as a charge-off.......either way their credit is then in the dumpers and then some even lose their homes in the process. There have been a lot of companies going out of business which means unemployment, tougher times finding employment due to scarce jobs or jobs that don't pay that well.

No real simple solution........