I Abstain In 2008: The Second American Revolution

page: 4
115
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by UFOTECH
 

I know full well the diff between the 2 major parties, as well as platform differences when it comes to things like universal healthcare. Heck, I even managed 12/12 in the PEW poll


What I don't know for sure about the US system is whether you can write-in Pres + VP or just a single write-in candidate. It would be tough for me to pick between the 2 but I would go RP if forced to make that choice.

Over here we get to number the candidates in order of preference, and if your #1 doesn't get enough primary votes to stay in contention, your vote automatically switches to the next highest on your list. This encourages voting for third party candidates, even though they still rarely get in. Our greens poll 10% consistently for example, though it was more like 25% in my electorate. Such results do reflect more accurately in our senate however. I could go on lol.




posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 

Like you, I thought I would copy my response to you, as well as the OP, for calling voting unpatriotic from the other thread in this one.

I've been told that doing a lot of other things like being against the war in Iraq was unpatriotic, but this is the first time I've seen someone say it was unpatriotic to vote. That is so absurd and self defeatist.

Not only is it our patriotic duty to vote, but it is our patriotic duty to hold our elected politicians accountable. The problem is not in the voting it is in holding them accountable.

Why do you think they make campaign promises that they never follow up on? Because we don't hold them accountable.

Why do they spend our tax dollars like there's no tomorrow? Because we don't hold them accountable.

Why are the people that mislead us into a war for corporate interests still around? Because we don't hold them accountable.


How do we hold our elected officials accountable?

One way to hold then accountable, is to vote!

Politicians respond to the voters and not to those that don't vote.



Originally posted by Gateway
Just follow the yellow brick road:

1) Lack of voter turnout.
2) Continue failed policies by a government will continue to see a deterioration of the populace to further participate in the "sham" 2 party system. (Can you say, Taxation without representation)
3) Further lack of voting.
4) Frustration of the electorate.
5) If the federal general election shows minimal voter turnout then, it automatically is an illegitimate government since it no longer is representative of the electorate.
6) Well, you know what comes next...


No I don't know what comes next. Please tell us.



[edit on 7/29/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
We all know nothing will be done until something drastic is done to the people. Something more profound like say the murdering and jailing of millions of innocent people across the United States. Even then some people will continue to think something like that is not real. They will believe what the TV tells them and even then wait to be herded like sheep into the slaughter of prisons.

I can't say for certain everyone will go willingly. But you have to understand your forefathers went against British rule and they did so not by greed, corruption, or ignorance but by the faith of the Almighty.

How many of you are faithful? I don't think a large portion of Americans are faithful in God otherwise they would not have let the carpet be pulled from underneath you all.

The only revolution the American people will get is a popular president, a slice of pizza with extra cheese, and a brand new plasma screen TV that is connected to sales ads that brainwash your kids to want more and more.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Hi,
I admire your ideals, but do you think they care at all what voter turnout is? It was something like 20-30 per cent in the last UK general election one.

Your insights are correct but I disagree with the methodology. Writing "I abstain" on paper is nothing at all.


Ron Paul was America's chance for a peaceful revolution. Alex Jones is great too.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Actually.. i was thinking about this the other day when I heard Obama want to create the 'civilian national security force'
. If this does happen, we do stand a chance to actually obtain some support from the current military to help combat the evil do'ers of the Obama Army. I also will use some of Titor's information that will allow us to obtain support from Russia and maybe China. ( though Obama's brother seems to be doing very well in China pushing cheap goods to the united states.. talk about the opposite side of the coin.

but anyway.. the theory of a true revolution is not as far off from reality as i thought not 2 years ago.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Oh, you mean like how the Democrats promised to hold Bush et al. responsible for a misleading and illegal war, once in power. Or how your Democratic congress said they would stop or reduce the war, or build-up as soon as they replaced the republican held congress.

Boy things have surely changed have they not, holding people accountable like we have for the last election sure got people what they wanted, would you say? 80% of the American public wants to end this war, yet we still are there. Snap out of it Hoss, there is a fundamental foreign policy at State Department that transcends ALL party lines which crosses both sides of the isles. You are being duped into thinking that voting will change a foreign policy, but you fail to understand that both groups implicitly agree on said policy.


As for your question about what comes next? Well it doesn't take much of metal exercise to understand that further neglect of the public wishes will only encourage more apathy and distrust, ultimately justly leading to a revolt.


[edit on 29-7-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Eh.

It's easier to control 20% of the people than it is to control 50% of the people. So if you really want to hand eternal power to the people in charge right now, go ahead with your half-cocked foolish plan and continue ignoring what I posted earlier.

Somebody else asked what the difference between voter abstinence and voter apathy is. The difference is, one has no voice because they are too lazy to speak, the other has no voice because the powers that be have succeeded in silencing them.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


You are absolutely correct....the best way to effect change is not to vote for any single incumbent. Congress and the Senate, all the way down to state and local levels of government are entrenched with "career politician" who care for nothing but keeping their jobs. We can get rid of all of them in one fell swoop, if enough of us get together and spread the word!

And hopefully their opponents will not be even worse!



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gateway
Oh, you mean like how the Democrats promised to hold Bush et al. responsible for a misleading and illegal war, once in power.

They didn't promise to impeach if they were given the majority. Pelosi said even before the midterms that impeachment was off the table. There were many worried that if we gave them the majority, that is what would happen. I agree they should be impeached so lets vote out anyone who did not support it.



Or how your Democratic congress said they would stop or reduce the war, or build-up as soon as they replaced the republican held congress.

They did promise to cut funding, but did not have enough of a majority to override the ones that supported it because it was "unpatriotic" not to support the troops. Not that I agree, but that is what happened.



Boy things have surely changed have they not, holding people accountable like we have for the last election sure got people what they wanted, would you say? 80% of the American public wants to end this war, yet we still are there.

You are expecting too much from a congress that barely has a majority to turn this country around in less than two years. They need more seats and more time. How can we give that to them? By voting.



Snap out of it Hoss, there is a fundamental foreign policy at State Department that transcends ALL party lines which crosses both sides of the isles. You are being duped into thinking that voting will change a foreign policy, but you fail to understand that both groups implicitly agree on said policy.

If it is some other entity controlling things and not the politicians, then how will not voting for the politicians help?



As for your question about what comes next? Well it doesn't take much of metal exercise to understand that further neglect of the public wishes will only encourage more apathy and distrust, ultimately justly leading to a revolt.

You mean "anger and distrust" right? Apathy is what you seem to be complaining about, whom most of us call those that don't vote.

As far as revolting, after we threw out all the politicians, what guarantees can you give that we would be better off?



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
They didn't promise to impeach if they were given the majority. Pelosi said even before the midterms that impeachment was off the table. There were many worried that if we gave them the majority, that is what would happen. I agree they should be impeached so lets vote out anyone who did not support t.


Holding people responsible, doesn't mean imprisoning Bush or Cheney, what it means is at the very least to investigate "What went wrong", who blew it, and who kept feeding disinformation about WMDs in Iraq, when certain intelligence agencies and other diplomats as well as UN Inspectors all claimed differently. If everyone admits that the truth was known from the outset, why this rush to war in the first place. And the fact that Pelosi, is not even considering this makes her an accomplice to the status quo., not even that for her and the rest of the Democrats except for kucinich will not even dare to mention the word "impeachment". Not one person has lost their bureaucratic job for sending 5,000 Americans to die, and who knows how many million Iraqis.



They did promise to cut funding, but did not have enough of a majority to override the ones that supported it because it was "unpatriotic" not to support the troops. Not that I agree, but that is what happened.

Look, if they got voted into office already why worry about the "unpatriotic" label, when clearly they were placed in that public office to abide to the will of the people and thus end this war one way or another.



You are expecting too much from a congress that barely has a majority to turn this country around in less than two years. They need more seats and more time. How can we give that to them? By voting.
Look, the Republican bums were kicked out for one reason and the Democrats were placed in office to end this war, not to fix some internal domestic policy issue that requires further debate like extending medicare. For two years they'd had a opportunity to put pressure on Bush to at the very least give the American people a timetable for withdrawal. And that's just it, doesn't this mean anything to you? Both again BOTH PARTIES think even giving us a timetable is unacceptable. What can you say when the American people, and even the puppet regime in Iraq is calling for timetables, but our leaders refuse to provide any. If that isn't contempt for the American people's will, then I don't know what is. This is a slippery slope.



If it is some other entity controlling things and not the politicians, then how will not voting for the politicians help?

I'm not a conspiricist, having said that, I do believe this country is run by a belief that "What's good for the American Corporation is good for America". Meaning that; why would we ever go against, the wishes of a corporation when surely they employ thousands of Americans. Thus if we hurt our corporations, then we hurt the American people. Which is a false concept and flies in the face of our founding fathers and constitution that proclaimed this nation to belong to its people not its merchant class. Not to mention that this mercantilism sentiment flies in the face of Capitalism and free Commerce. If Bear Sterns goes bankrupt, who the hell cares? If we believe in Capitalism then some businesses will fail others will succeed. Using taxpayer money to subsidize corporation is corporatism bordering on socialism, if not blatant fascism.



You mean "anger and distrust" right? Apathy is what you seem to be complaining about, whom most of us call those that don't vote.
What is apathy if not the disillusionment that your vote will make any difference, ie change. On election day some people will decide to stay home to pick their nose, perhaps not because they are lazy, but because the act of picking their noses makes more of a difference in their life than voting for some guy who will keep the status quo.


[edit on 29-7-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 




As far as revolting, after we threw out all the politicians, what guarantees can you give that we would be better off?


There are no guarantees, the founding fathers did not guarantee that this country will remain as free as it once was, FOREVER. That's why they believed in curtailing the power of the Federal Government, they believed that Government has an insatiable lust for more power, that's why we have divisions of power between Federal and Sate. They new that such a system was imperfect, but would at least slow down the beast, that has been known to oppress man since the existence of the word "Government". Our founding fathers were well learned men, informed on Aristotle, natural rights laws, studied ancient Greek and Roman history, they knew what a large Federal government would do. That's why they left YOU AND I an out, if we wanted it. Hence we have a 2nd amendment.....notice its not number 23 or 15 it is right after the freedom of speech. America's founders were clear on this subject. Our first President, George Washington, called our firearms "the people's liberty teeth." Our third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, said, "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."


[edit on 29-7-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Something to think about: I'm of the belief that if you abstain from voting in an election, you also forfeit the right to complain about the results of that election no matter how badly you are affected.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


how the hell does that work? i think it should be the opposite, if you vote for these a--holes then you arnt alowed to complain. that makes much more sense.

me on the otherhand i didnt vote for them i can say whatever i want.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Something to think about: I'm of the belief that if you abstain from voting in an election, you also forfeit the right to complain about the results of that election no matter how badly you are affected.


To the contrary, if you choose not to vote your are saying that neither candidate speaks for you. On the other hand, those that voted for Bush and will continue to be stupid enough to vote for a warmonger like Mcain and or a socialist like Obama do not have a right to complain if their sons and daughters are drafted into another war, or if we continue to have financial bubbles along with the ensuing depressions that these so-called FED supporters give us.

In other words, you guys that want more WAR, more MORE GOVERNMENT go ahead be my guest and vote for the two shills I'm sure they will be more than happy to give that to you.


[edit on 29-7-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gateway
Holding people responsible, doesn't mean imprisoning Bush or Cheney, what it means is at the very least to investigate "What went wrong", who blew it, and who kept feeding disinformation about WMDs in Iraq, when certain intelligence agencies and other diplomats as well as UN Inspectors all claimed differently. If everyone admits that the truth was known from the outset, why this rush to war in the first place. And the fact that Pelosi, is not even considering this makes her an accomplice to the status quo., not even that for her and the rest of the Democrats except for kucinich will not even dare to mention the word "impeachment". Not one person has lost their bureaucratic job for sending 5,000 Americans to die, and who knows how many million Iraqis.

We do know what went wrong. We were mislead. Other than that I'm not sure what your getting at. Your not telling me anything I don't already know and agree with. They should be impeached and because congress did not, they should also be held accountable. Maybe I am missing your point.


Look, if they got voted into office already why worry about the "unpatriotic" label, when clearly they were placed in that public office to abide to the will of the people and thus end this war one way or another.

I am just saying that was the excuse they used to support funding the troops, not that I agreed with it.


Look, the Republican bums were kicked out for one reason and the Democrats were placed in office to end this war, not to fix some internal domestic policy issue that requires further debate like extending medicare. For two years they'd had a opportunity to put pressure on Bush to at the very least give the American people a timetable for withdrawal. And that's just it, doesn't this mean anything to you? Both again BOTH PARTIES think even giving us a timetable is unacceptable. What can you say when the American people, and even the puppet regime in Iraq is calling for timetables, but our leaders refuse to provide any. If that isn't contempt for the American people's will, then I don't know what is. This is a slippery slope.

They did have a timetable in the last funding bill and Bush vetoed it. He promised to veto any bill that included a timetable.


I'm not a conspiricist, having said that, I do believe this country is run by a belief that "What's good for the American Corporation is good for America". Meaning that why would we ever go against, the wishes of a corporation when surely they employ thousands of Americans. Thus if we hurt our corporations, then we hurt the American people. Which is a false concept and flies in the face of our founding fathers and constitution that proclaimed this nation to belong to its people not its merchant class. Not to mention that this mercantilism sentiment flies in the face of Capitalism and free Commerce. If Bear Sterns goes bankrupt, who the hell cares? If we believe in Capitalism then some businesses will fail others will succeed. Using taxpayer money to subsidize corporation is corporatism bordering on socialism, if not blatant fascism.

Again, your preaching to the choir. You don't have to convince me of any of this.


What is apathy if not the disillusionment that your vote will make any difference, ie change. On election day some people will decide to stay home to pick their nose, perhaps not because they are lazy, but because the act of picking their noses makes more of a difference in their life than voting for some guy who will keep the status quo

If they would go out and vote maybe we wouldn't be in the shape we are in. Not only do all Americans need to vote, but they need to vote intelligently.

Punching a whole in a card is better than shooting a hole in somebody.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRepublic
 


Seriously though, if you are going to sit out of the game this time around and excercise your power not to vote, where the hell do you get the right to criticize me or anyone else for how I voted when I'm actively participating in this country's electoral process?

I'm not out there casting a vote to elect a guy just so I can disappoint a few million people out there, I'm casting a vote for a guy I think has the best chance of fixing the problems we're in now. True, we're only offered two decisions, but out of those two there is one I think that stands out and offers a brighter future than the other.

So I ask again, where do you get off complaining about the vote that I will cast when I decide to participate?



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gateway

Originally posted by sos37
Something to think about: I'm of the belief that if you abstain from voting in an election, you also forfeit the right to complain about the results of that election no matter how badly you are affected.


To the contrary, if you choose not to vote your are saying that neither candidate speaks for you. On the other hand, those that voted for Bush and will continue to be stupid enough to vote for a warmonger like Mcain and or a socialist like Obama do not have a right to complain if their sons and daughters are drafted into another war, or if we continue to have financial bubbles along with the ensuing depressions that these so-called FED supporters give us.

In other words, you guys that want more WAR, more MORE GOVERNMENT go ahead be my guest and vote for the two shills that will be more than happy to give that to you.


The problem I see with your deductive reasoning is you've got it all nicely canned so that the blame for any of the worse of situations rests squarely on the shoulders of the POTUS and that's just not right. Why is the president solely to blame when the members of Congress have more power than he/she does? Are you prepared to abstain in your state's congressional elections as well?

For example - if Obama is POTUS and we were to face another housing bubble that bursts, it's not his fault that it happened just as it isn't Bush's fault that the first one happened. There were a LOT of factors involved, not the least of which were greedy, predatory lenders out to make a quick buck and homeowners who bit off way more than they knew they could chew. They took a gamble with an adjustable rate mortgage and they lost! And now the taxpayer is expected to bail out both the lending institutions and the homebuyers for their greed. Bush originally was opposed to doing this because it isn't right, but he conceded because he knew not signing the bill would be very, very bad on the economy.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 

I know there aren't any guarantees that things would be better, that's why I asked. So before we all gather up our guns and go to war, let's try to find a better way to improve things. Isn't that what we failed to do before invading Iraq? You would be repeating the same mistake.

As much as I would also like to go back and live as our forefathers intended, you have to realize that today things are much more complicated. We have 300 million people in this country now and many social services that rely on a stable government functioning. You remove that and we will be far worse off.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
We do know what went wrong. We were mislead. Other than that I'm not sure what your getting at. Your not telling me anything I don't already know and agree with. They should be impeached and because congress did not, they should also be held accountable. Maybe I am missing your point.
Well, if we were mislead and then we voted-in a congress that ran on the premise to "get to the bottom of it" and to "hold someone accountable", and here we are two years later...zilch. What does this tell me? It tells me that democrats like republicans will never bury one of their own. Not just that, but since congress continues to shirk its constitutional duty, when it clearly states:

"The Congress shall have power to declare war..."

Then I an every other patriot of the constitution have a right, NO a Duty to not participate in a system that ignores what has been clearly written. How can I with a strait face vote for either party that spits on these written powers. Since war is such an atrocious and probably the most horrible and most important responsibility a gov. has; since it kills and destroys property, how can we believe or trust these same elected officials to respect other amendments like freedom of speech, or due process. (patriot act, anyone)




I am just saying that was the excuse they used to support funding the troops, not that I agreed with it.
That's just it, its not an excuse. What's worse is that we implicitly except the excuse, when we go on our merry way and keep voting...Democrat or Republican.



They did have a timetable in the last funding bill and Bush vetoed it. He promised to veto any bill that included a timetable.
Congress has the ability to override a veto. Wasn't it convenient to pass some known bill that both funded the war and allowed the congress a pass, by claiming..."Oh well, don't blame me....Bush vetoed it" It seems like Pelosi had her cake and then ate it too. No matter how you slice it, both Democrats and Republicans don't want to rock the proverbial boat and change the Policy.




Again, your preaching to the choir. You don't have to convince me of any of this.
Ok, we can agree to agree.




If they would go out and vote maybe we wouldn't be in the shape we are in. Not only do all Americans need to vote, but they need to vote intelligently. Punching a whole in a card is better than shooting a hole in somebody.
At the onset of this country hardly anyone if ever came to contact with a federal bureaucrat, government particularly at the federal level was tiny, in fact if you look at the number of voters for the federal leaders as opposed to local leaders you'd be shocked. People hardly cared about government at the federal level, so it is quite ironic that with the massive exponential growth of government we've had an upsurge in people who vote at the Federal level. So I proclaim that those that continue to vote rather then thinking their vote will cure our ills, may in fact be contributing to the problem, and those that do not vote are the ones who will ultimately lead to the solution.

What else will you have people do when they face, huge un-payable deficits, an ever increasing encroachment of our civil liberties, tax increases, wars we don't want or need, foreign policy that is interventionist, Illegal Quazi-Government institutions depreciating our purchasing power... I'm afraid people can only take so much, and if the consensus among the population feels that voting has only brought on all of this and most likely will continue to give them more of the same, even though they may have once thought like you that voting would make a difference, well then perhaps in due time things will be ripe for change.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by Gateway]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
what did the founding fathers do when they were taxed unfairly? they abstained from paying it. I think they would be proud of the spirit of protest actually.

Oh yeah, that's right...And this tactic was even unanimously passed by our Founding Forefathers & recorded in the 1774 Journals of the Continental Congress:

If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113

This was one of the solutions of the "taxation without representation" problem that the Founding Forefathers dealt with...And a good solution it is.

Of course, just as the Founding Forefathers were armed & had expected a "military-style" response from England, we must also be ready when our currently-corrupted government responds the same way...Otherwise, withholding your money could prove problematic.


Currently, the Supreme Court has been "ruling" that, while the People have the Right to Petition, via the 1st Amendment, the government has no obligation to respond or acknowledge the petition at all...What a load of BS!

The Founding Forefathers wrote the Constitution in a manner such that, for everything included therein, there must exist an effective result. Therefore, the Right to issue Petitions must be also carry the effective result of the government's responsibility to respond & redress. The Constitution is not merely a "guideline" or a matter of "public policy"...It's the Supreme Law of the Land & must be upheld as such.

Well, the tactic of withholding your tax-monies until your grievances are redressed is the enforcement mechanism we have to make sure the government is held accountable...This was one of the primary purposes of this protest (No Answers, No Taxes). In short, if the government doesn't listen to those whom they represent, we have the power to bankrupt them! Well, we can bankrupt them once & for all...They've already declared bankruptcy once, which is why they let the Fed Res Act go into effect.

Since it seems that money is the only thing they listen to anymore, let's get their full attention by denying it to them!

Withholding your vote means (to them) that you don't even want to be heard...But withholding your money! They'll listen to that!
Of course, you should check out some people who are already doing so, like the people at the last link I provided...At least you can learn how they're doing it Lawfully. Of course, the PTB will try to say that it's not "legal," but you must learn the difference between "legal" & "lawful" or you won't have any defense from their corrupted courtrooms: One clue is that "Lawful" carries more weight than "Legal."


Originally posted by Gateway
There are no guarantees, the founding fathers did not guarantee that this country will remain as free as it once was, FOREVER. That's why they believed in curtailing the power of the Federal Government, they believed that Government has an insatiable lust for more power...

And also why they made sure that the People would always have some way to enforce those Constitutional limitations on government.
"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people."--Thomas Jefferson
Everything in the Bill of Rights represents the fact that, no matter how hard the government tries, we can still exercise those Rights...And may even be expected to defend our Nation from our Government through the use of those Rights. In a nutshell, people must learn our Supreme Law & what it means & learn how our public servants have betrayed us--Then determine to take action to correct the problems created by that betrayal. That's the key: Education & action.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."--Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by Gateway
In other words, you guys that want more WAR, more MORE GOVERNMENT go ahead be my guest and vote for the two shills that will be more than happy to give that to you.

And this is precisely one of the biggest problems to be solved...We must reduce the size of government & restrict them to remain within their own limited scope of tasks.
"History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is."--Thomas Jefferson
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."--Thomas Jefferson
And a possible result, if the People are successful...
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."--Thomas Jefferson.

Originally posted by Hal9000
We have 300 million people in this country now and many social services that rely on a stable government functioning. You remove that and we will be far worse off.

And where in the Constitution does it give the feds any authority to create "social services?" The single most-abused phrase in the Constitution is the "general welfare" clause in the Preamble...That was intended to let the government provide for the general welfare on the Nation as a whole...Not to provide "Social Security" or "Health Insurance" that reaches down to the level of individual Citizens! After all, most of those so-called "services" aren't even needed, or they can be supported on the State level. This is how the Feds have grown too big & force a level of dependence upon us that must be broken.


Originally posted by Hal9000
They did have a timetable in the last funding bill and Bush vetoed it. He promised to veto any bill that included a timetable.

And that's no excuse for Congress to stop trying...Anything bush vetoes, Congress can pass through again to override the veto! By not doing so, Congress is merely acting as Bush's accomplices while merely "going through the motions" to appear as if they're opposing him: It's become a matter of "good PR" to oppose Bush since Congress' ratings went so low. Smoke & mirrors, dude.





new topics

top topics



 
115
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join