Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 6

 

2006-11-08 10:43:06
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|6904|Washington, DC

IRONCHEF wrote:

The patriot act is not dangerous because it can "help" fight the war on terror, or because it will prosecute those who are doing bad things....(it's already proven to not help that anyway).  it's dangerous because it's shredded our constitution considerably.  Ashcroft and Gonzales literally conspired to make it in a way that would negate constitutional rights for the sake of catching enemies foreign and domestic.  IN doing so, they have committed the high crime and impeachable (punishable actually) offense of disregarding the constitution..something they were SWORN to uphold.  That's all that matters.  Because police can now perform search and seizure operations that were once protected by the constitution, that's enough to know it's bad.

Oh, the wiretapping you're referring to is different.  That's a seperate abuse inflicted upon us by wrecking the constitution and avoiding the lawful court orders to do so according to the FISA agreements.

But hey, it's to be expected when the president and the attorney general consider the constitution as a goddamned piece of paper.
A difficult water to tread indeed. I admit I'm once again in the middle on this subject. On one hand, I want freedom. I don't want to have to worry about men in suits in offices in the middle of Virginia listening in on what I do. I don't want to worry about "fingermen" (V for Vendetta ftw) taking me for "questioning" in the middle of the night. But likewise, I don't want terrorists in our country being able to discuss their plots with their buddies knowing the NSA won't listen in/surveillance them because they hold the constitution so dear.

I think it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who give up freedoms for safety deserve neither.", and that's probably one of the most difficult statements to talk about. If we had no surveillance thing like the PAct (I haven't read it in detail so bear with my ignorance), and those British bomb plotters were in the US, what if they carried out their plans because nobody inspected? But again, what if it goes to the point of you not being able to buy a few household cleaning chemicals without the CIA/NSA doing a background check on you?
2006-11-08 10:44:43
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Here's a sneak preview of their five point plan:

1) Compulsory abortions for all.
2) Bus service between Ciudad de Juarez and Los Angeles for poor needy illegal Mexican immigrants.
3) Set up flight schools in Iraq for Islamic fundamentalists.
4) Set the upper band tax rate at 85%.
5) Ban all guns, knives and sharp objects (including cutlery).
You slightly amused me with that, maybe I can get a straight answer from someone in our own country who isn't hell bent on playing devil's advocate.  Thanks for implying that those answers is what I expected Cam, I deserve more respect than that.
It wasn't specifically directed at you - it was just a sarcastic joke - I posted it earlier in a thread of Harmor's.
I know i'm just messing with you Cam, we're good buddies, and yes we have to have a sense of humor in this business.  Hope your having a good day, we just got done with a 5 day storm here in WA state.
2006-11-08 10:46:26
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

Hurricane wrote:

I think it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who give up freedoms for safety deserve neither.", and that's probably one of the most difficult statements to talk about. If we had no surveillance thing like the PAct (I haven't read it in detail so bear with my ignorance), and those British bomb plotters were in the US, what if they carried out their plans because nobody inspected? But again, what if it goes to the point of you not being able to buy a few household cleaning chemicals without the CIA/NSA doing a background check on you?
Of course, and what we need is balance, which we have with the Patriot act, anything more than what it grants would be too much IMO.  There will probably be amendments to it in the future which will probably hinder it and grant it further power, time will tell, but we have been safe for a good 5 years now.  Stay strong Democrats.

What old Ben was shooting for was balance between freedom and safety.  Most Democrats I talk to, when I talk on this issue, TELL me that what I want is something like V for Vendetta, Nothing could be further from the truth, I'm glad you guys aren't overgeneralizing me like you have in the past, and I thank you for it.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-11-08 10:48:52)

2006-11-08 10:48:18
redhawk454
Member
+50|6822|Divided States of America

IRONCHEF wrote:

FOR THE OP:

Uh, what's wrong with raising taxes?  Do you forget that it's our taxes that pay for things?  Do you also realize Bush squandered a huge surplus and put is near a trillion in debt?  Should dems keep the facade going that money grows on trees?

I expect a responsible compromise between adjustment of current money (chop off the Iraq funding, trash the useless DHS and other useless government growth Bush made despite the republican mantra of 'small government'), and taxation.

I don't expect the 49 million americans without healthcare to suddenly have it.  I simply hope that's down to at least 40 million americans by the end of this congressional term.

Abortion?  Well, Republicans had 12 years to do something about it, and of course they failed..probably because THE PEOPLE of this country want it still, unfortunately.  Dems will not change anything because there's nothing to change.

Gay Marriage is a state issue, as it's always been, so again, nothing will change from the house.

What are you looking for here?  You're asking questions in an accusatory way as if Republicans had ANY of those things under control! lol
If there was such a surplus, then why didnt Bill Clinton fix health care or social security?
2006-11-08 10:48:45
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6855|SE London

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Nothing is wrong with raising taxes, unless thats all you do for every problem (somewhat kidding, but not really) Libs seem to be always willing to spend money on just about everything, and than collect more taxes.... Not very smart, do you realize that our deficit is DECREASING because of tax cuts and conservative implements.... hmmmm, I will be happy if you guys can balance the budget better though.
The deficit exists because of Bush's tax cuts. You can't claim tax cuts are to do with decreasing the deficit, since after the tax cuts were introduced the US has suffered multiple record budget deficits. That's a big turnaround from Clintons record surpluses. You can't claim it's to do with 9/11 or anything like that, because the stock markets worldwide are doing very well and have done very well on years when Bush has had an enormous budget deficit.

There have been positive economic effects from the tax cuts, but with increased government spending they simply haven't worked out. Alan Greenspan (who I think is great) was a big supporter of Bush's tax cuts. He soon changed his point of view when he saw the deficits.
2006-11-08 10:49:06
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6824|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
2. What are you going to DO about immigration.

Check out your immigration policy (where even I as a Brit would struggle to get in) vs the UK's (where any unskilled idiot can get through the gates), I'm sure you would celebrate the so-called "problem" you have.

3. What are you going to do about health care that DOES NOT involve raising taxes??

So you want better health care but don't want to pay for it?  That's some messed up logic there.  Ever heard the expression "No such thing as a free lunch"?

4. How about gun control?  Siding with John Conyers and Pelosi for a Nat'l Handgun ban? Think that'll work? It didn't in D.C.....

Maybe not, but it does it most countries.  Sorry for the wake up call but there aren't many countries with such lslack gun laws as the US.

5. Abortion?

Well, they're liberal so they'll probably agree with it - again like the rest of the World who are living in 2006 and not the biblical era.

6. Gay Marriage?

See above.

7. Education? Just going to raise taxes as usual?

See point 3

8. Oh almost forgot Iraq? Phased withdrawl, complete withdrawl.

Whatever they do, it'll be better than the current situation.
2006-11-08 10:50:52
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

Bertster7 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Nothing is wrong with raising taxes, unless thats all you do for every problem (somewhat kidding, but not really) Libs seem to be always willing to spend money on just about everything, and than collect more taxes.... Not very smart, do you realize that our deficit is DECREASING because of tax cuts and conservative implements.... hmmmm, I will be happy if you guys can balance the budget better though.
The deficit exists because of Bush's tax cuts. You can't claim tax cuts are to do with decreasing the deficit, since after the tax cuts were introduced the US has suffered multiple record budget deficits. That's a big turnaround from Clintons record surpluses. You can't claim it's to do with 9/11 or anything like that, because the stock markets worldwide are doing very well and have done very well on years when Bush has had an enormous budget deficit.

There have been positive economic effects from the tax cuts, but with increased government spending they simply haven't worked out. Alan Greenspan (who I think is great) was a big supporter of Bush's tax cuts. He soon changed his point of view when he saw the deficits.
I only meant that it contributed my friend, I never even mentioned 9/11............the market is fluid and its changing, but what we need in D.C. is a BALANCED budget, not more taxes, otherwise the deficit will start growing again.  And you can't say that the deficit is Bush's fault just like I can't say tax cuts are the reason its gone up again.  So shame on you.  I agree with your last statement though .  I digress, we need a balanced budget and LESS spending. Maybe not more tax cuts, in fact go ahead and increase some taxes, but REDUCE spending.
2006-11-08 10:54:19
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

2. What are you going to DO about immigration.

Check out your immigration policy (where even I as a Brit would struggle to get in) vs the UK's (where any unskilled idiot can get through the gates), I'm sure you would celebrate the so-called "problem" you have.

3. What are you going to do about health care that DOES NOT involve raising taxes??

So you want better health care but don't want to pay for it?  That's some messed up logic there.  Ever heard the expression "No such thing as a free lunch"?

4. How about gun control?  Siding with John Conyers and Pelosi for a Nat'l Handgun ban? Think that'll work? It didn't in D.C.....

Maybe not, but it does it most countries.  Sorry for the wake up call but there aren't many countries with such lslack gun laws as the US.

5. Abortion?

Well, they're liberal so they'll probably agree with it - again like the rest of the World who are living in 2006 and not the biblical era.

6. Gay Marriage?

See above.

7. Education? Just going to raise taxes as usual?

See point 3

8. Oh almost forgot Iraq? Phased withdrawl, complete withdrawl.

Whatever they do, it'll be better than the current situation.
3. I never said I don't want to pay for it, I PAY FOR IT RIGHT NOW, but GIVING it away for FREE is something entirely different, isn't it???

4. Its not a wake up call, and you make a point that you should listen to, it works in OTHER countries, not ours.

5. Nice over generalization, I disagree with the party line here, if you actually read some of my posts, I don't think Repubs on the whole want to ban it, but there should be some guideliness (partial birth abortions.....)

6. See point 3.  You can't just give stuff away for free.

Listen up Dems, I SUPPORT HIGHER TAXES, only if you DECREASE spending and increase subsidies, I don't know why people don't talk about this more, it has worked before, and will work again, but you guys just want to tax and spend without saving.

Thanks for the answers though, its about time someone spoke up. However you just kinda repeated yourself with explaining really anything but talking points, I didn't see one solution you offered in your post.  Keep trying.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-11-08 10:58:16)

2006-11-08 10:55:07
redhawk454
Member
+50|6822|Divided States of America

Snipedya14 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

HeimdalX wrote:

And here I was thinking that people were just tired of Republicans doing nothing, which is why 1 out of 3 republicans in my red state voted democrat and offset some key votes.

So to answer your question, they'll do more than Republicans have done probably. Maybe they'll repeal the patriot act and give us freedom back.
Name one thing that YOU have lost from the Patriot Act.  Have you even read it? Did you know that it was amended/extended just this last session OVERWHELMINGLY by Democrats? You don't even know what you're talking about.

Still waiting libs, cmon, humor me, waiting for your answers.
First off, I am not a "lib" so dont expect answers from me. But as far as the PATRIOT act goes, section 216 still exists, and while nothing directly has happened to me, the basic fact that it COULD disturbs me.

The scary thing is,  These powers the president has granted the executive  branch (including but not limited to the PATRIOT act) allows not only GWB powers, but any future presidents as well. That is what really scares me. Imagine Hillary (censorship queen) with all the powers that GWB has today. Any way you look at it, its bad news.

I leave with a famous and,  IMO true saying

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
You could be hit by a truck tomorrow, should we do away with trucks also?
2006-11-08 10:56:30
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

redhawk454 wrote:

You could be hit by a truck tomorrow, should we do away with trucks also?
In fact you have more of a probability by being hit by a truck than having your civil liberties taken away.  Good point. 
2006-11-08 11:04:56
redhawk454
Member
+50|6822|Divided States of America

IRONCHEF wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

Patriot Act isn't as bad as it's made out to be. Frankly, if you aren't plotting to blow up buildings, then you shouldn't mind the possibility that out of 300 million Americans, the CIA and NSA will listen to your convos with your girlfriend. Now then, I'd be concerned if the CIA+NSA caught wind of some of my IRC messages.

"how about that UAV trailer? and their artillery pieces?"
*tap*
"yeah lets blow it up, lots of explosives"
*untap*

*knock on door*
Sir, we'd like to take you to our offices for some questioning...
The patriot act is not dangerous because it can "help" fight the war on terror, or because it will prosecute those who are doing bad things....(it's already proven to not help that anyway).  it's dangerous because it's shredded our constitution considerably.  Ashcroft and Gonzales literally conspired to make it in a way that would negate constitutional rights for the sake of catching enemies foreign and domestic.  IN doing so, they have committed the high crime and impeachable (punishable actually) offense of disregarding the constitution..something they were SWORN to uphold.  That's all that matters.  Because police can now perform search and seizure operations that were once protected by the constitution, that's enough to know it's bad.

Oh, the wiretapping you're referring to is different.  That's a seperate abuse inflicted upon us by wrecking the constitution and avoiding the lawful court orders to do so according to the FISA agreements.

But hey, it's to be expected when the president and the attorney general consider the constitution as a goddamned piece of paper.
Didnt you know the constitution is dead? Even mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans agrees. The second amendment was the first to fall. Like when he ordered the confiscation of all lawfully owned firearms. I say lawfully owned because we know the criminals were not going to turn theirs in. Hell even his police were getting in on the looting.
2006-11-08 11:05:01
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6964|Tampa Bay Florida
Hey Albert, why don't you give them slightly longer than 12 hours until you start asking questions?  You're right wing cronies in Washington have been in charge for 6 years, and quite frankly everything you mentioned has gone to the level of shit.  It's like shit fried in butter, they're trying to make it taste good, but in the end it still tastes like shit.
2006-11-08 11:08:22
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

Spearhead wrote:

Hey Albert, why don't you give them slightly longer than 12 hours until you start asking questions?  You're right wing cronies in Washington have been in charge for 6 years, and quite frankly everything you mentioned has gone to the level of shit.  It's like shit fried in butter, they're trying to make it taste good, but in the end it still tastes like shit.
LOL, how about reading all my posts, I'm just CURIOUS what your guys stances are, thanks for being extreme.  Level of shit? My right wing cronies, you don't know a god damned thing about me, next time try just answering my curious questions and reading all my posts.  Try not to overgeneralize me in the future, you will regret it, for I am a moderate conservative who actually talks about the issues instead of going down to the level of attacks.  I said CONGRATULATIONS to the Dems, and I just wanted to know your guys' opinions.  Excuse me.
2006-11-08 11:09:26
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

redhawk454 wrote:

Didnt you know the constitution is dead? Even mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans agrees. The second amendment was the first to fall. Like when he ordered the confiscation of all lawfully owned firearms. I say lawfully owned because we know the criminals were not going to turn theirs in. Hell even his police were getting in on the looting.
I wish I could karma you twice. 
2006-11-08 11:10:51
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6823|Southeastern USA

IRONCHEF wrote:

FOR THE OP:

Uh, what's wrong with raising taxes?  Do you forget that it's our taxes that pay for things?  Do you also realize Bush squandered a huge surplus and put is near a trillion in debt?  Should dems keep the facade going that money grows on trees?
how about explaining how raising taxes = zero tax revenue growth (usually a spike the first year or two in effect, then it stagnates), while lowering taxes = tax revenue increase. it's almost as if letting people like ATG keep more of their money, they grow more business which can be taxed. Look at the retail market, if a business wants more revenue, do they raise their prices (equates to taxes)? No, they look for more customers (equates to tax base). Alot of times that requires lowering prices (taxes). or maybe you're just talkiing about raising taxes on those evil rich people, that'll show them for having the gall to start their own businesses, how dare Phil and Cathy be successful with that pizza parlor they work, sweat, and bleed their lives into!!!!! that's the answer, completely absolve those that use the majority of the tax funded programs, whether it be health clinics or paved roads from contributing to the tax base at all!!!

Don't forget that your precious dems were some of the loudest voices calling for alot of these new tax funded programs, like the DHS. while i do agree there was a little too much money being spent, there are a few areas in which it was unavoidable, like the need to restructure the military after the end of the cold war ( and after clinton let it go to pot).
2006-11-08 11:12:51
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6824|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
3. I never said I don't want to pay for it, I PAY FOR IT RIGHT NOW, but GIVING it away for FREE is something entirely different, isn't it???

Giving it away free?  Maybe I'm not best to answer this as over here it's always been free so I can't compare.  We have the idea that no matter how poor you are, you still deserve to live so health care is free, seems to make sense to me but I do realise that the NHS is pretty unique.

4. Its not a wake up call, and you make a point that you should listen to, it works in OTHER countries, not ours.

Is that not making an assumption without trial?  Why are you so certain that it won't work (apart from basing it on one state).  Also, why wouldn't it work?  Are people addicted to handguns like heroin?  Will people get hand gun withdrawal symptoms?

5. Nice over generalization, I disagree with the party line here, if you actually read some of my posts, I don't think Repubs on the whole want to ban it, but there should be some guideliness (partial birth abortions.....)

So there no guideline currently?  That's shocking!

6. See point 3.  You can't just give stuff away for free.

I don't understaqnd, that was about gay marraige.  Maybe, like the NHS, we have the opposite system where people who want to get married (gay or straight) have to pay for their own wedding.  Please let me know if this is different in the US.
2006-11-08 11:14:56
[CANADA]_Zenmaster
Pope Picard II
+473|7019

smtt686 wrote:

well it appears my taxes are going up.. They already said they would repeal tax breaks on dividends and capital gains.  Thanks for ruining my lifestyle assholes.
A bit conceited aren't we? Would you like a cookie so you can get over your pain? Life is so hard for you, please let me massage your feet you poor baby - because life is all about how much money you make and what you do with it! Why don't you go exploit some Mexican workers to make up the difference?

Just trying to be helpful,
Your friendly neighbor in Canada
2006-11-08 11:16:07
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

3. I never said I don't want to pay for it, I PAY FOR IT RIGHT NOW, but GIVING it away for FREE is something entirely different, isn't it???

Giving it away free?  Maybe I'm not best to answer this as over here it's always been free so I can't compare.  We have the idea that no matter how poor you are, you still deserve to live so health care is free, seems to make sense to me but I do realise that the NHS is pretty unique.

4. Its not a wake up call, and you make a point that you should listen to, it works in OTHER countries, not ours.

Is that not making an assumption without trial?  Why are you so certain that it won't work (apart from basing it on one state).  Also, why wouldn't it work?  Are people addicted to handguns like heroin?  Will people get hand gun withdrawal symptoms?

5. Nice over generalization, I disagree with the party line here, if you actually read some of my posts, I don't think Repubs on the whole want to ban it, but there should be some guideliness (partial birth abortions.....)

So there no guideline currently?  That's shocking!

6. See point 3.  You can't just give stuff away for free.

I don't understaqnd, that was about gay marraige.  Maybe, like the NHS, we have the opposite system where people who want to get married (gay or straight) have to pay for their own wedding.  Please let me know if this is different in the US.
No worries, why am I so certain that it won't work, look at D.C. look at maryland, look at N.Y. (in certain regions) where restrictive gun control has increased crimes.  Taking guns away from law abiding citizens only gives more guns to CRIMINALS, thats why it doesn't work, because criminals are assholes, my SOLUTION: Tougher sentences for people who commit any crime with a firearm. And more stringent background checks. Addicted to handguns? No? Addicted to freedom? Yes. When will you Euros understand that its not the same over here. Go to LA for ONE day, serious, just go there for one day and walk around the eastside, than you'll catch my drift.

Thanks for talking with me, you've been wonderful to talk to, you haven't overgeneralized me and attacked me, I hope you have a good day.

Cheers.
2006-11-08 11:16:29
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6823|Southeastern USA

[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:

smtt686 wrote:

well it appears my taxes are going up.. They already said they would repeal tax breaks on dividends and capital gains.  Thanks for ruining my lifestyle assholes.
A bit conceited aren't we? Would you like a cookie so you can get over your pain? Life is so hard for you, please let me massage your feet you poor baby - because life is all about how much money you make and what you do with it! Why don't you go exploit some Mexican workers to make up the difference?

Just trying to be helpful,
Your friendly neighbor in Canada
as opposed to life being how much money you make and what someone else does with it?
2006-11-08 11:17:10
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6918|Seattle, WA

[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:

smtt686 wrote:

well it appears my taxes are going up.. They already said they would repeal tax breaks on dividends and capital gains.  Thanks for ruining my lifestyle assholes.
A bit conceited aren't we? Would you like a cookie so you can get over your pain? Life is so hard for you, please let me massage your feet you poor baby - because life is all about how much money you make and what you do with it! Why don't you go exploit some Mexican workers to make up the difference?

Just trying to be helpful,
Your friendly neighbor in Canada
Well than if life isn't about money, than why are the taxes probably going to up, lol.  Have a good day.

Feel free to keep debating guys, I gotta run, but remember Dems, I'm not trying to cajole you guys, I just want to know what you guys want to do, and what you intend to do with my freedoms that I hold so dear to my heart.  Keep it clean fellas, we are all friends here.

Good day.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-11-08 11:18:02)

2006-11-08 11:18:33
lWar Pigl
Member
+4|6898|South Coast, Massachusetts
Does anyone honestly believe that the Republican party did a great job running this country??  I think not!  They did nothing but drag this country into the gutter.  We are no longer trusted in the international community.  The Iraq war made sure of that.  That whole war is solely based upon one man's obsession to eliminate/remove from power "the one man who tried to kill my dad", a quote from Bush during the early stage of the war.

Now that the Democrats are in control, I'm sure that it will be for the betterment of this country!  Things can only start to get better because this country really has hit a low point, only way to go is up!

Things will really change for the better in 08 when a Democratic President is elected.  I'm sorry, but the Republican party has really hurt themselves by blindly following the President.  Just look how many are against him now!

All in all, ultimately, I think that it doesn't matter who runs the country because it is no longer "For the People, By the People".  Once politicians are in office of any kind, their main concern is "what can I gain from this position?"  I believe that they really don't care about the little people anymore, only people with lots of money to donate to the campaigns or to their causes!

Hey, what do I know?  I'm just a poor hard working slob just like the rest of us!

Just ranting (I hate discussing politics with anyone!)
2006-11-08 11:19:13
syntaxmax642
Member
+32|6899|Seattle
Either way we got stuck choosing between a Douche and a Turd Sandwitch. So who won...The Douche?


Mhhhmmm South Park... FTW...
2006-11-08 11:27:11
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6964|Tampa Bay Florida
Okay Albert, I'll explain your post to you.........

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Ok so first off, I would like to say Congratulations to the Democrats, they ran an "interesting" campaign
Use of quotes indicates skeptism

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1. Are you just going to raise taxes and only confirm activist judges?
A dumb and pointless question, you know they are quite capable of doing other things.  Only confirm activist judges?  Is that a fucking joke?  The right wing has control of the U.S. Supreme court for years to come, many judges of which are right wing, racist in some way or another, and Christian.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

2. What are you going to DO about immigration.
A skeptical question...   

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

3. What are you going to do about health care that DOES NOT involve raising taxes??
Another skeptical question.  It's becoming clear now that you don't know or care about what democrats have to say.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

4. How about gun control?  Siding with John Conyers and Pelosi for a Nat'l Handgun ban? Think that'll work? It didn't in D.C.....
Another skeptical and stereotypical question.  You've proven now that you are against what democrats have to say in general.  Sorry the election didn't work out for you.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

5. Abortion?
We lived in a free society, last I checked.  It's not the governments place to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body...

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

6. Gay Marriage?
Free society, all men and women created equal, gay or straight.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

7. Education? Just going to raise taxes as usual?
No, we're going to FIX it.  No Child Left Behind is an absolute failure and a joke among teachers nationwide. 

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

8. Oh almost forgot Iraq? Phased withdrawl, complete withdrawl.
As if that's a bad thing?  It's time Iraqis fucking step up to their own problems.  Yes, it sucks, but it's the truth. 

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

9. Impeaching proceedings for the Pres? For what exactly, and don't you do say lying or I will direct you to a dictionary.
Been around a TV the past week?  Multiple times democratic leaders have been saying no impeachment.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

I've heard enough of your guys' garbage on your ads, now talk about yourselves, your values, and what you plan to support or change now that the ball is in your court.
I could say the same about Republicans.  Their ads are every bit as misleading as democrats'.  Yes, the ball is in our damn court, and we're gonna keep the play going.  It's clear you're very pissed about the election.. and you also have almost no grasp or reality of what democrats believe in. 

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

And don't be extreme, or I'll slap you with a herring.
You already accomplished that yourself, go slap yourself.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Thanks for your input and ll I can say is Good luck, all eyes are on you now, and now you guys are going to be scrutinized and picked apart just like you did to us when we had majority.
Conclusion to Alberts OP : he's extremely pissed, now that his right wing, yes his right wing cronies can no longer pass bills without judgement or limits.  It's clear that after reading through the OP he is extremely stereotypical, skeptical, disrespectful, and has almost no positive judgement whatsoever about the democratic party representitives.

Good luck to your president as well.  Now that he can no longer approve fucked up bills which have fucked up the country, maybe we can finally do something in Washington for a change.

Sorry you lost.  We know it's our turn, that's why we ran in the first place.  Please stop acting like we think otherwise.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-11-08 11:29:23)

2006-11-08 11:28:03
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7010|Salt Lake City

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Ok so first off, I would like to say Congratulations to the Democrats, they ran an "interesting" campaign not to the standards I would like, but won fair and square, and with good reasons as well.  But this I would like to know, so what now? What are you going to change? What are you guys going to be rooting for?

1. Are you just going to raise taxes and only confirm activist judges?

Some taxes may need to be raised, but spending needs to be put into check.  We have far too much duplication of services within the government.  We need to centralize these services, and look at outsourcing noncritical services to the private sector.

2. What are you going to DO about immigration. How some one comes into this country, other than for vacation purposes, needs to be addressed.  The process needs to be more simpified and faster.  Limited guest worker programs needs to be looked at.  Those cought in the country illegally need to be deported, and as far as I am concerned, anyone caught here illegaly loses any possibility of every gaining citizenship or work/student visa.  We need to implement a database that will allow employers to quickly and easily check the validity of any SSI or other documentation.  Failure to do so needs to result in severe penalties.  Dry up the companies knowingly hiring illegals and the illegals will stop coming.

3. What are you going to do about health care that DOES NOT involve raising taxes??  This is a difficult question.  I would prefer not to see socialized medicine, but health care that is affordable so that employers can afford to offer with rates, deductibles, and coverage that a working stiff could afford to pay for.  Part of the problem are the continual expectations of profit growth from insurance companies, but a large part of lies with Americans themselves.  They tend to be overweight, have poor dietary habbits, and don't get enough excercise.  We also tend to be sue happy, looking for that quick score.  This may require addressing jury awards for malpractice suits, except where extremely gross negligence is shown to have occurred on the part of the doctor and/or hospital.

4. How about gun control?  Siding with John Conyers and Pelosi for a Nat'l Handgun ban? Think that'll work? It didn't in D.C.....  I am not for banning guns, as I own a couple myself.  I am all for making the penalties of using a gun during the commission of a crime even more severe than they are now.  I would also make it a severe crime for anyone caught selling guns illegaly, or shop owners failing to properly run background checks.  I think the AWB was rediculous because it made distinctions based on cosmetics of a weapon, rather than weapon capabilities.

5. Abortion?  Should be kept legal.  We need to address the cause of the problem, not the end result of the problem.  Abstinence only education has failed.  I also think elective abortions should only be allowed during the first trimester.  After that it should only be performed if a doctor determines that the baby has fatal defects or there is severe risk of death to the mother.  I think the no questions asked policy for dropping infants off at hospitals is good, and needs to advertised more; I don't think a lot of people really know about it.

6. Gay Marriage?  This should be left to the states.  It's not a constitutional issue that should be addressed at the federal level.  The government needs to stay the hell out of people's bedrooms and personal  relationships.

7. Education? Just going to raise taxes as usual? I think core subjects, such as math and science need to be standardized, and the levels raised.  Beyond that the local state/county/city can decide on the other curriculum.

8. Oh almost forgot Iraq? Phased withdrawl, complete withdrawl. I responded to lowing's question on this yesterday, so I am going to cut and paste my answer here.

A. Donald Rumsfeld must go.  He's made Iraq and following the current path a personal agenda like he's holding a grudge. (This one just got handled)

B. Properly supply the troops we have.  What kind of bullshit statement is it that you go to war with what you have now.  We have been there for years, we have thrown billions of dollars into this war, and we have improperly supplied troops, all the while civilian contractors have raked in millions upon millions of dollars in war profit.

C. You have to put a stop to the major civil fighting going on before you can weed out terrorists.  They are using this to their advantage.  Until these people are more concerned about having their country back than killing each other, terrorists will continue to have nearly free reign.

D. Split up the country.  Give the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds their own area.  They can set up their own local governments for control of their area.  Baghdad will remain neautral and be the place where the national government resides; not really that much different than how we have state and federal government.  For this to work it would require that each 1/3 of the country have access to food, water, power, etc.  A plan for each segment to receive oil profits would be devised, and then each section can use the money to develop their area as they see fit.

E. Finish the investigations of those prisoners in Gitmo and formally charge them.  Then let them stand trial in Iraqi courts.

F. Stop unilaterally backing Israel.

9. Impeaching proceedings for the Pres? For what exactly, and don't you do say lying or I will direct you to a dictionary. No comment.
2006-11-08 11:32:05
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6824|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

No worries, why am I so certain that it won't work, look at D.C. look at maryland, look at N.Y. (in certain regions) where restrictive gun control has increased crimes.  Taking guns away from law abiding citizens only gives more guns to CRIMINALS, thats why it doesn't work, because criminals are assholes, my SOLUTION: Tougher sentences for people who commit any crime with a firearm. And more stringent background checks. Addicted to handguns? No? Addicted to freedom? Yes. When will you Euros understand that its not the same over here. Go to LA for ONE day, serious, just go there for one day and walk around the eastside, than you'll catch my drift.

Thanks for talking with me, you've been wonderful to talk to, you haven't overgeneralized me and attacked me, I hope you have a good day.

Cheers.
Things never woirk when they try them out in one state/county/region.  They try and run 'trials' over here in counties but if you disagree you just drive to the next county without the restrictions.  If they outlawed handguns in one state, it seems obvious to me that the law-abiding citizens would follow it and the criminals would just go to another state, buy a gun and take it back.  Now if the whole country was hand gun free, a criminal would have to leave the country and smuggle it back in - at which point it becomes a border control issue.

Can you explain the addicted to freedom/go to LA bit.  I assume you're referring the gang culture there (I think I missed the episode of Ross Kemp On Gangs when he went to LA, I'll se if I can download it).  I don't see what gangs and freedom have in common buyt then I', half sure I've not read your post correctly.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard