It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am running for president in 2016

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
My positions:

-Secure the borders by whatever means necessary. This includes militarizing the southern border to deal with the continued threats from mexico.

-End all foreign aid. Unconstitutional, and a waste of our taxpayers money.

-End welfare. If you want help, you WILL work. No one can be on welfare for a period longer than 6 months.

-End Iraq conflict. complete withdrawl with the exception of a small security contingent so that we may take however much oil we need.

-Abolish the IRS and put in place a consumption tax.

-An immediate reduction in spending of 15-20% in all federal programs.

- Elimination of all federal departments that arent authorized by the Constitution.

- I will also push for federal legislation criminalizing the act of proposing or voting for any law which violates the Constitution.

- Federal recognition of the right of someone to marry any consenting adult regardless of sex.

- Elimination of all tax exempt status of any faith based organization that gives support to any political candidate or issue.

- Legalization/decriminalitzation of all currently prohibited substances. The federal government has no power to dictate what one may or may not put into their own body.

- An immediate 50% reduction in visas issued. We have enough people here, lets slow down all immigration.

- Once and for all I would repeal the section of the 14th Amendment that is currently being exploited by illegal aliens.

I would remove government from healthcare and let the free market make the decisions.


I am:

Pro gun
Anti tax
Pro Small government
Anti republican
anti democrat
Pro freedom

Can I count on the ATS voting bloc?




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
My positions:

-Secure the borders by whatever means necessary. This includes militarizing the southern border to deal with the continued threats from mexico.


continued threats? i'm sorry, but they aren't really threats, they're mostly migrant workers.



-End all foreign aid. Unconstitutional, and a waste of our taxpayers money.


how is it unconstitutional? you actually have to back up a statement like that.



-End welfare. If you want help, you WILL work. No one can be on welfare for a period longer than 6 months.


it's not always that simple. what if you're mentally ill and unable to work because of it?



-End Iraq conflict. complete withdrawl with the exception of a small security contingent so that we may take however much oil we need.


alright, so withdraw from a country and then steal its resources, great job breaking international law and offending common decency.



-Abolish the IRS and put in place a consumption tax.


consumption taxes unfairly harm the poor. poorer people who only consume necessities are left with nothing to save up.



-An immediate reduction in spending of 15-20% in all federal programs.


alright, let's start with the military.



- Elimination of all federal departments that arent authorized by the Constitution.


the constitution leaves room for growth...
clearly somebody hasn't ready it through.



- I will also push for federal legislation criminalizing the act of proposing or voting for any law which violates the Constitution.


you're going to criminalize the amendment process?
and by whose interpretation of the constitution?



- Federal recognition of the right of someone to marry any consenting adult regardless of sex.


i'll agree with that one.



- Elimination of all tax exempt status of any faith based organization that gives support to any political candidate or issue.


i'll agree with this too



- Legalization/decriminalitzation of all currently prohibited substances. The federal government has no power to dictate what one may or may not put into their own body.


...crack? you're going to legalize crack? that's insane



- An immediate 50% reduction in visas issued. We have enough people here, lets slow down all immigration.


i'll disagree with this one too. we need immigration. this country has always thrived on it.



- Once and for all I would repeal the section of the 14th Amendment that is currently being exploited by illegal aliens.


you can't repeal an amendment without an amendment and a president has no part in that process. you'd also have to propose a law that is explicitly unconstitutional to do so.



I would remove government from healthcare and let the free market make the decisions.


look at world statistics. the countries with the best healthcare systems have socialized systems. the free market isn't the best thing here.



I am:

Pro gun


to what extent? will i be allowed to own a howitzer?



Anti tax


i'll disagree with this too. taxes are necessary.



Pro Small government


small government doesn't work, see how america faired under the articles of confederation



Anti republican
anti democrat


well, i guess you're against the political parties, i'll agree with that.



Pro freedom


yet, apparently not the freedom to disagree with you



Can I count on the ATS voting bloc?


not this vote.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Well you have my vote.
A little iffy on the drug legalization since it didn't seem to have worked out to well in other places it has been tried but I can overlook that considering I agree with everything else you stand for.
And may I suggest one more?:

We are asked to take a drug screen to apply for employment, we should have to take a drug screen when applying for welfare and other government subsistance.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul




continued threats? i'm sorry, but they aren't really threats, they're mostly migrant workers.


When you stop getting your news from sources like Indymedia, feel free to cmon back and have an actual intelligent debate.





how is it unconstitutional? you actually have to back up a statement like that.


Actually pretty simply. Ever read the Constitution? You wont find anything authorizing sending our money to prop up foreign nations.



it's not always that simple. what if you're mentally ill and unable to work because of it?


Life isnt fair, and it certainly isnt the governments job or duty to make it that way.




alright, so withdraw from a country and then steal its resources, great job breaking international law and offending common decency.


Exactly which resources have been stolen? If you are referring to oil, you had better have the precise number of barrels you claim were stolen, along with which refineries said oil was shipped to.



consumption taxes unfairly harm the poor. poorer people who only consume necessities are left with nothing to save up.


Thereby providing the necessary motivation to get themselves out poverty/near poverty.



alright, let's start with the military.


Actually lets get rid of each and every unconstitutional social program ever put in place by an abusive government who seeks to install socialism as a way of life here.



the constitution leaves room for growth...
clearly somebody hasn't ready it through.


I have forgotten more about the Constitution than you could ever hope to know. If you wish to engage in a Constitutional debate, I would be more than happy to humiliate you.



you're going to criminalize the amendment process?
and by whose interpretation of the constitution?


Uh no. Ever heard hate crime laws? Just one small example of Unconstitutional legislation. Why rely on interpretations which are subject to bias when we can simply rely on the words of and writings of those who actually penned the document?




...crack? you're going to legalize crack? that's insane


Point out which part of the Constitution gives government the power to dictate what one may or may not put into their own bodies? Would you feel the same way if the feds decided to outlaw your favorite sex toy for those lonely nights?



i'll disagree with this one too. we need immigration. this country has always thrived on it.


100% Wrong. You obviously know nothing of the current state of affairs or the threat posed by overpopulation. We certainly do not NEED immigration.



you can't repeal an amendment without an amendment and a president has no part in that process. you'd also have to propose a law that is explicitly unconstitutional to do so.


Proposing an amendment is not Unconstitutional. Try taking civics 101.



look at world statistics. the countries with the best healthcare systems have socialized systems. the free market isn't the best thing here.


Ever happen to notice those countries also have confiscatory tax rates? How about Canada, want to debate their socialized health care plan?




to what extent? will i be allowed to own a howitzer?


Certainly, if you could afford it. There is no Constitutional measure outlawing it.




i'll disagree with this too. taxes are necessary.


Only those authorized by the Constitution, and income aint one of em.



small government doesn't work, see how america faired under the articles of confederation


big government doesnt work. See the former Soviet Union, present day China, North Korea, Myanmar, need I go on?




yet, apparently not the freedom to disagree with you


You can disagree with me until your head pops off for all I care. You have the right to your opinion, *snip*
Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory



not this vote.


Thats ok, people like you might scare off freedom loving people.


[edit on 14-1-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ben Miller
Well you have my vote.
A little iffy on the drug legalization since it didn't seem to have worked out to well in other places it has been tried but I can overlook that considering I agree with everything else you stand for.
And may I suggest one more?:

We are asked to take a drug screen to apply for employment, we should have to take a drug screen when applying for welfare and other government subsistance.


If welfare must be, I would advocate a number of stipulations before one is mailed a check.

1. Random drug testing.- Crackheads dont need welfare.

2. Removing the right to vote for welfare recipients. - We dont need welfare losers to be voting in politicians who promise them more of our money.

3. Sterilization for the term they are on welfare. - Welfare people dont need to be crapping out more mouths for the taxpayers to feed.

4. Removal of any children from the home and placing them with willing foster care families. - It would have both a motivational and a financial impact on the welfare parents. If they want their kids back, they can find a way to make ends meet and stop living off the taxpayers dime.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
How do you feel about a "Basic knowledge" test before one is allowed to vote?
If they can't answer a few simple questions they can't vote.
sample questions that every voter should know:

1. who is the vice president?
2. how many states is there in the union?
3. how long is the president in office?

simple things to most o us but you would be surprised what is being dragged to the polls on electionday.

Also, voters need to provide proof of legal residence inthe U.S. before they can vote. Also fingerprinting should be part of the voting process, to cut down on multiple voting fraud.

you implement all these things and I guarantee that Democrats stop winning elections!



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
When you stop getting your news from sources like Indymedia, feel free to cmon back and have an actual intelligent debate.


alright, this is the second time you've assumed that i get my information from sources like that...
but i don't. hell, i hadn't even heard of indymedia until the first time you accused me of it.

and see... this is what is called an ad hominem attack. an attack against me... yet you can't attack the claim.




Actually pretty simply. Ever read the Constitution? You wont find anything authorizing sending our money to prop up foreign nations.


but there isn't anything specifically prohibiting it. under the elastic clause, foreign aid is constitutional. (the elastic clause can be found in article 1 of the constitution)



Life isnt fair, and it certainly isnt the governments job or duty to make it that way.


ah the old "life isn't fair" line..
well, what if you're mentally ill because you fought in a war?
a significant portion of the homeless population are veterans... doesn't the government have a responsibility to them?

oh, and i actually think it is a government's job to even things out and provide equal access to opportunity.




Exactly which resources have been stolen? If you are referring to oil, you had better have the precise number of barrels you claim were stolen, along with which refineries said oil was shipped to.


...alright, clearly you didn't read the part in your post where you said we'd take their oil
that's called theft
it's also an offense under international law



Thereby providing the necessary motivation to get themselves out poverty/near poverty.


by keeping them in poverty?
the impoverished don't need motivation, they need opportunity and to hold onto as much of their income as possible so they can save it up.
a consumption tax prevents the impoverished from accumulating savings.



Actually lets get rid of each and every unconstitutional social program ever put in place by an abusive government who seeks to install socialism as a way of life here.


name an unconstitutional program in place. then show me how it's unconstitutional. i'd like you to cite the constitution here.



I have forgotten more about the Constitution than you could ever hope to know.


wow, arrogance much?
you've clearly forgotten about the elastic clause.



If you wish to engage in a Constitutional debate, I would be more than happy to humiliate you.


more arrogance.
see, i prefer my candidates to have people skills and not be arrogant.




Uh no. Ever heard hate crime laws? Just one small example of Unconstitutional legislation.


show me how it's unconstitutional.
i'm sorry if i sound like a broken record, but i'm from missouri, the show me state.



Why rely on interpretations which are subject to bias when we can simply rely on the words of and writings of those who actually penned the document?


welllllllllllll
considering that the document itself isn't inerrant and is actually quite vague in some parts, you can't really rely on the words on the document

oh, and socialism could be allowed under the constitution:
promoting the general welfare + the elastic clause.



Point out which part of the Constitution gives government the power to dictate what one may or may not put into their own bodies?


well, outlawing substances that are clearly harmful (like crack) is promoting the general welfare. that's right there in the constitution. outlawing a substance that destroys people's lives is promoting the general welfare



Would you feel the same way if the feds decided to outlaw your favorite sex toy for those lonely nights?


i don't use sex toys...
but that's something a bit different. a sex toy isn't a harmful substance with horrible addictive properties.

have you ever MET a crack addict? i have, it's quite scary




100% Wrong. You obviously know nothing of the current state of affairs or the threat posed by overpopulation. We certainly do not NEED immigration.


america isn't a very densely populated nation. overpopulation isn't as much of a problem here.
we've always needed immigration. immigration creates an influx of new ideas that this nation has thrived upon.



Proposing an amendment is not Unconstitutional. Try taking civics 101.


nevermind, you clearly didn't understand my reasoning.

and again, ad hom attacks. you're being very rude, and i don't appreciate it



Ever happen to notice those countries also have confiscatory tax rates? How about Canada, want to debate their socialized health care plan?


i'd prefer the stellar example of france
or malta... malta would be easier for me, i'm here right now and know quite a bit about the system.



Certainly, if you could afford it. There is no Constitutional measure outlawing it.


hooray, we're going to live in a world of private armies controlled by mutlibillionaires!
neo-feudalism, here we come!



Only those authorized by the Constitution, and income aint one of em.


excuse me, but it is.
16th amendment.
apparently that's one of those things you've forgotten about the constitution



big government doesnt work. See the former Soviet Union, present day China, North Korea, Myanmar, need I go on?


france, sweden, norway, finland.

it's actually not the size that's an issue in those cases, it's the form of government. you brought up 4 straw men when you mention only 1 party, totalitarian/authoritarian states.




You can disagree with me until your head pops off for all I care.


yet you'd make it illegal to propose a law that is unconstitutional according to your views...



You have the right to your opinion, just the same as I have the right to believe you to be a quasi-socialist retard.


ah, now the name calling continues!
see the lack of argument here?
i love it, you really demonstrate how you'd make a WONDERFUL presidential candidate when you stoop to such lows that betray your lack of argument.




Thats ok, people like you might scare off freedom loving people.


i'm sorry, but i love freedom. i also love common decency, intellectualism, knowledge of the constitution and modesty.

things you lack



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

alright, this is the second time you've assumed that i get my information from sources like that...


You claimed they were just "migrant workers", how about we call them what they really are: migrant criminals. They violate numerous sections of the USC simply by crossing illegally. When they work, they violate even more. Ever heard of MS13? They just came here to work too right?




but there isn't anything specifically prohibiting it. under the elastic clause, foreign aid is constitutional. (the elastic clause can be found in article 1 of the constitution)


Ah see, your little elastic clause there also goes by another name: The necessary and proper clause. Foreign aid is neither necessary or proper. You may want to try reading the decision handed down in McCulloch v. Maryland

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison.



ah the old "life isn't fair" line..
well, what if you're mentally ill because you fought in a war?

oh, and i actually think it is a government's job to even things out and provide equal access to opportunity.


To ill veterans, yes. That does not mean supporting them for the rest of their lives.

You think its the duty of the government to make things fair? Using that logic, you support spending each and every cent of the federal budget to cure oh lets say mental retardation just to make things fair right? Do you support the federal government buying prosthetic body parts for each and every amputee?



...alright, clearly you didn't read the part in your post where you said we'd take their oil
that's called theft
it's also an offense under international law


No, actually thats called collection of payment for services rendered.



by keeping them in poverty?
the impoverished don't need motivation, they need opportunity and to hold onto as much of their income as possible so they can save it up.
a consumption tax prevents the impoverished from accumulating savings.


Clearly you know nothing about the idea of a consumption tax. Each and every consumption tax idea thrown around today has a general exemption for the first (insert certain amount here).

Besides, its time poor people actually started paying for services in which they chiefly benefit from.



name an unconstitutional program in place. then show me how it's unconstitutional. i'd like you to cite the constitution here.


Affirmative action. -14th amendment.

Any of the various "New Deal" Programs. You are aware of how those were passed arent you? You may want to research that a bit.

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887



you've clearly forgotten about the elastic clause.


I have forgotten how many people like you twist that clause, along with the general welfare clause to fit into their own little ideologies. Unfortunately for you, and people like you, the Constitution proves you wrong on both fronts.




show me how it's unconstitutional.
i'm sorry if i sound like a broken record, but i'm from missouri, the show me state.


Again, refer to the 14th Amendment.

"or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Now, how do I (straight white male) receive equal protection when someone may get a longer prison sentence for killing a gay black woman than they would if they had simply killed me?



welllllllllllll
considering that the document itself isn't inerrant and is actually quite vague in some parts, you can't really rely on the words on the _/quote]

You really mean you rely on interpretations you agree with when the actual document destroys your argument. gotcha.


oh, and socialism could be allowed under the constitution:
promoting the general welfare + the elastic clause.


Ahahahahahahahaha. Cite a single case to back up that ridiculous notion.

General does not equal individual, you do know that right? hahahahahaha.

Seriously kid, using 2 clauses out of the entire document to base all of your arguments on makes you a fool.



well, outlawing substances that are clearly harmful (like crack) is promoting the general welfare. that's right there in the constitution. outlawing a substance that destroys people's lives is promoting the general welfare


Yet again you sound like a broken record kid. Hint: The general welfare clause DOES NOT give the federal government carte blanche to do whatever they want to. It doesnt even pertain to individuals. It pertains to the nation.



i don't use sex toys...
but that's something a bit different. a sex toy isn't a harmful substance with horrible addictive properties.


Yet very much like crack, sex toys are also against the law in certain bible belt jurisdictions. You dont support that do you?




america isn't a very densely populated nation.
we've always needed immigration. immigration creates an influx of new ideas that this nation has thrived upon.


Who said anything about dense population? Your opinion that we NEED immigration, is just that opinion. We dont. I can back that up. Can you?



you're being very rude, and i don't appreciate it.


Awww, guess it's time for you to man up for once huh?



i'd prefer the stellar example of france
or malta... malta would be easier for me, i'm here right now and know quite a bit about the system.


Ever thought of just staying there? Please do.



hooray, we're going to live in a world of private armies controlled by mutlibillionaires!
neo-feudalism, here we come!


Well you completely avoided the Constitutional aspect of it. Do you even know the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment?



excuse me, but it is.
16th amendment.
apparently that's one of those things you've forgotten about the constitution


It seems youve forgotten the words of the 16th, so after you are done re-reading it, why dont you give the LEGAL (not thecommon) definition of the word income?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




yet you'd make it illegal to propose a law that is unconstitutional according to your views...


You stated I dont want people to have the freedom to disagree with me. I replied by saying disagree with me until your head pops off. How does that indicate I dont want anyone disagreeing with me?
*snip*
Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory



i'm sorry, but i love freedom. i also love common decency, intellectualism, knowledge of the constitution and modesty.


Odd, each and every argument youve made contradicts your little statement there.

Am I modest? Nah, not really.Thats what happens when youre both smart and good looking.







[edit on 14-1-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
well I ain't gonna get into a pissin contest like this but I will say
you lost my vote with the homosexuality line. Any consenting
adult don't cut it for me.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonSays
well I ain't gonna get into a pissin contest like this but I will say
you lost my vote with the homosexuality line. Any consenting
adult don't cut it for me.


So you think the government should regulate what adults do with other adults?

Your idea doesnt pass Constitutional muster.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
So you think the government should regulate what adults do with other adults?
Your idea doesnt pass Constitutional muster.

Well when I stand in judgement, I don't expect to hand
God a copy of our constitution and say this is my reasoning
for endorsing sin. There is a difference between not
agreeing with it and endorsing it. If boys want to fornicate
with other boys. That is their right to do so according to
our constitution. But I won't endorse any candidate who
says it is the norm or even says it's ok to get benefits
from it. There comes a time when you have to use the
common sense God gives us and say enough is enough.
And I'm saying .... that'll be quite enough.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
You claimed they were just "migrant workers",


...well, i used the word mostly instead of "just"



how about we call them what they really are: migrant criminals. They violate numerous sections of the USC simply by crossing illegally. When they work, they violate even more. Ever heard of MS13? They just came here to work too right?


how about this: sometimes laws are wrong.

if you base your entire view of things on a narrow, legalistic view, you're bound to rob people of their humanity as you are right now.

sorry, i won't vote for those who dehumanize for the sake of their agenda.



Ah see, your little elastic clause there also goes by another name: The necessary and proper clause. Foreign aid is neither necessary or proper. You may want to try reading the decision handed down in McCulloch v. Maryland


you could have paraphrased it and provided a link, that would have been the type of courtesy i'd expect from a real leader.

so let me look at it myself.
let's see.. the case is from 1819...
and has to do with federal banking... not with foreign aid.



"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison.


ok, necessary and proper... how about this: providing foreign aid is necessary and proper for political prestige, which enables us to keep the peace through diplomacy instead of needless war.




To ill veterans, yes. That does not mean supporting them for the rest of their lives.


i never said the government should be supporting people for the rest of their lives...




You think its the duty of the government to make things fair? Using that logic, you support spending each and every cent of the federal budget to cure oh lets say mental retardation just to make things fair right? Do you support the federal government buying prosthetic body parts for each and every amputee?


actually, i would. it's called government healthcare... which is, in practice, superior to free market systems




No, actually thats called collection of payment for services rendered.


services rendered?
alright, give me your address. i'm going to bulldoze half of your current residence, repaint it, then take some of your possessions for services rendered.

last time i checked, demolition of a nation isn't a service rendered...



Clearly you know nothing about the idea of a consumption tax. Each and every consumption tax idea thrown around today has a general exemption for the first (insert certain amount here).


it still would keep people back...
a glass ceiling. once they reach that point it would be a big obstacle to overcome.
and what about the economics of it? how would inflation fair under a consumption tax?



Besides, its time poor people actually started paying for services in which they chiefly benefit from.


with the money they don't have?



Affirmative action. -14th amendment.


so preventing overt exclusion of minorities in the workplace violates equal protection?



Any of the various "New Deal" Programs. You are aware of how those were passed arent you? You may want to research that a bit.


didn't i say SPECIFIC?
please, being vague isn't going to foster a discussion



"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887


the argument from authority is a logical fallacy...



I have forgotten how many people like you twist that clause, along with the general welfare clause to fit into their own little ideologies. Unfortunately for you, and people like you, the Constitution proves you wrong on both fronts.




Again, refer to the 14th Amendment.

"or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Now, how do I (straight white male) receive equal protection when someone may get a longer prison sentence for killing a gay black woman than they would if they had simply killed me?


well, if you killed them for being a gay black woman... it makes sense
they'd get a longer sentence for killing you for being a straight white male...






You really mean you rely on interpretations you agree with when the actual document destroys your argument. gotcha.


ah, more arrogance.
no, i'm pointing out that the document is vague. it is also errant (that's why we have an amendment process)



Ahahahahahahahaha. Cite a single case to back up that ridiculous notion.


you are being a very rude person.

i don't have to... see, we're arguing constitutional theory. theory in the realm of philosophical discourse (in this case, political philosophy) doesn't have to be backed up by specific cases.



General does not equal individual, you do know that right? hahahahahaha.



ok..if the majority benefit, the general welfare is ensured. certain socialized systems would GREATLY benefit the general welfare. my primary example being a socialized health system a la france. they have a much better system than we do and you can receive private care if you want.




Seriously kid, using 2 clauses out of the entire document to base all of your arguments on makes you a fool.


let's see... age bigotry followed by an ad hom attack...



Yet again you sound like a broken record kid. Hint: The general welfare clause DOES NOT give the federal government carte blanche to do whatever they want to. It doesnt even pertain to individuals. It pertains to the nation.


so do you with the age bigotry...
ok...
if crack addiction spiked in this nation, it would be very bad for the nation.




Yet very much like crack, sex toys are also against the law in certain bible belt jurisdictions. You dont support that do you?


this is what's called a logically inconsistent argument. crack has been scientifically proven to be harmful...
sex toys have not.



Who said anything about dense population? Your opinion that we NEED immigration, is just that opinion. We dont. I can back that up. Can you?


well, you've yet to back up yours..
how about this, i think we need immigration from parts of the world that are, in fact, superior to america in many ways. we need influxes of new ideas.




Awww, guess it's time for you to man up for once huh?


ah, more rudeness. see, this is the type of statement that shows you'd make a horrid leader.



Ever thought of just staying there? Please do.


wow! in absence of an argument you made a personal attack!

how about this: show me how france and malta have crap for healthcare and how a free market system is benefiting america right now

wait! you can't. because that's just not true.



Well you completely avoided the Constitutional aspect of it. Do you even know the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment?


which one?
there are multiple purposes...and it's quite the vague statement
part of it is to ensure that governments don't take away the right to individual protection
part of it was to set up "militias" which are now referred to as the national guard





It seems youve forgotten the words of the 16th, so after you are done re-reading it, why dont you give the LEGAL (not thecommon) definition of the word income?


why didn't you just provide it instead of being rude again?

honestly, i'm out of this thread until you learn something known as common decency.

i want to have an intellectual discussion, you want to call me a quasi socialist retard.

i'm not stooping to your level.

(bbcode)

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonSays

So you think the government should regulate what adults do with other adults?
Your idea doesnt pass Constitutional muster.

Well when I stand in judgement, I don't expect to hand
God a copy of our constitution and say this is my reasoning
for endorsing sin. There is a difference between not
agreeing with it and endorsing it. If boys want to fornicate
with other boys. That is their right to do so according to
our constitution. But I won't endorse any candidate who
says it is the norm or even says it's ok to get benefits
from it. There comes a time when you have to use the
common sense God gives us and say enough is enough.
And I'm saying .... that'll be quite enough.

Could you do me a favor and show me some proof (not blind faith) that this alleged god character actually exists?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
seriously, this is my last post... i could point out at least 6 ad hominem attacks...
i'm not going to talk to someone who insists on being rude anymore, i just wanted to point out something to

reply to post by slackerwire
 



The ONLY intent behind the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the people (thats us) have the means to overthrow the government should it ever become tyrannical. It has nothing to do with "setting up militias".



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.


someone hasn't read the constitution lately...

granted, the original intent isn't the current national guard system...

with that, i'm out



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire







Wow, a little touchy here arent we?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul




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.


someone hasn't read the constitution lately...

granted, the original intent isn't the current national guard system...

with that, i'm out


It says nothing about setting up militias. We the people are in fact the militia.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I'd vote for you..



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Don't have my vote, sorry. I support your run though.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join