American Politics

[hazeh]

As far as engaging with regular citizens, Ron Paul is pretty far up there. He IS pretty much a regular citizen. His proposed salary (should he be elected) is equal to the median household income. And he's actually had real world experience in medicine, military, etc. As far as viewing Americans as a single group... well, we aren't. There are different people, and that's a fact of life. Trying to make everyone equal as far as economic standing or social power isn't practical and simply doesn't work. Libertarianism is a pretty dang good practical equalizer though, or at least the Ron Paul brand of libertarianism. True libertarianism is closest to anarchy, but if we simply took a Paul-esque approach and actually recognized that, HEY, the 10th amendment EXISTS, let's follow it, things could change.

 

That said, I'm a backwoods, gun toting, ultra-conservative. So very few people here agree with me

Just because we are different doesn't mean we can't be one people. Politicians like to treat everyone as if we are two separate nations that are at war and will never be united. What I like about Obama is that he is patient and tries to equate everyone on their value as an American citizen. He makes me feel that even though I'm just an 18 year old kid with hardly any life experience, I'm just as worthy an American citizen as some guy who makes millions of dollars a year. Regardless of our political parties, Obama has shown that he does care about us. And he has also shown that he respects everyone while I can't say the same for any of the republican nominees.

 

Ron Paul seems to be the least dangerous of the Republicans, but I am extremely wary of his stance on abortion, exceptionally so because he was an obstetrician. As a woman I fear that if he made office he would be a danger to my reproductive health.

 

I don't think you're backwoods. I think we just have differing ideologies. c:

[philpot123]

Just because we are different doesn't mean we can't be one people. Politicians like to treat everyone as if we are two separate nations that are at war and will never be united. What I like about Obama is that he is patient and tries to equate everyone on their value as an American citizen. He makes me feel that even though I'm just an 18 year old kid with hardly any life experience, I'm just as worthy an American citizen as some guy who makes millions of dollars a year. Regardless of our political parties, Obama has shown that he does care about us. And he has also shown that he respects everyone while I can't say the same for any of the republican nominees.

 

Ron Paul seems to be the least dangerous of the Republicans, but I am extremely wary of his stance on abortion, exceptionally so because he was an obstetrician. As a woman I fear that if he made office he would be a danger to my reproductive health.

 

I don't think you're backwoods. I think we just have differing ideologies. c:

At its core, libertarianism is respect for all man in the form of restoring basic rights that have been deprived by our puffed up national government, a government that has been arguably increasing and abusing it's constitutional boundaries since Lincoln and before.

 

That's the beautiful thing though, Ron Paul is COMPLETELY pro-life... but even his proposed sanctity of life act, if passed, would be up to the STATES to enact. The 10th amendment is a beautiful thing! So his personal views on abortion would have no effect on you personally, that's up to your state government. BOOM! That's how good ol' 'Murca was DESIGNED to work

 

But... I think I'm backwoods

[7Deadly$ins]

Yeah, and it's not like plenty of Republican states aren't just waiting for a chance to limit abortion.

[philpot123]

Yeah, and it's not like plenty of Republican states aren't just waiting for a chance to limit abortion.

And at that point it's at a more accessible, and people can make a difference. The national government is distant and we have almost no say in what goes on. The state level is a whole different story. That's how our constitution was designed, there SHOULD be that diversity in states. It doesn't matter if we think it's right or wrong, because the government is always going to do things against certain people's value systems. You can't please everyone. If your state passes something you don't like, get involved and change it, or move over a state! What's so wrong about going back to the way our country started? The way it was designed to be run? That's my gripe with our government. They spit on the constitution they swear to uphold every day, when there are avenues to change it if what they're doing is acceptable. Either change the constitution or don't do X unconstitutional thing, but for gosh sakes don't just wipe your butt with it and screw the people over for the sake of your personal agenda. Ron Paul has a pro-life agenda, but under the American constitution that doesn't mean jack crap. He has no say in the matter.

[7Deadly$ins]

You and I have very different political alignments, as you and I both know. Personally, I favor a more powerful national government, and I generally think that state distinctions are more trouble than they are worth and we should try to be homogenized as a country.

[philpot123]

You and I have very different political alignments, as you and I both know. Personally, I favor a more powerful national government, and I generally think that state distinctions are more trouble than they are worth and we should try to be homogenized as a country.

That's fine as a political viewpoint, but it's entirely unconstitutional.

[7Deadly$ins]

That's fine as a political viewpoint, but it's entirely unconstitutional.

...Well, I also think that many parts of the Constitution are rather outdated, including the much-beloved Second Amendment. But I believe we've gone back and forth on this topic before.

[philpot123]

...Well, I also think that many parts of the Constitution are rather outdated, including the much-beloved Second Amendment. But I believe we've gone back and forth on this topic before.

I don't really see how the second amendment is outdated in any way. Being able to defend myself is just as right and relevant now as it ever was. Guns still exist, the bad guys still have guns. Why should the only people who have them be cops and killers? O.o

[hazeh]

I don't really see how the second amendment is outdated in any way. Being able to defend myself is just as right and relevant now as it ever was. Guns still exist, the bad guys still have guns. Why should the only people who have them be cops and killers? O.o

I believe in gun control, and a mandate of some sort that criminal records have to be approved in order for someone to possess a firearm. But I think it's a little much for everyone to be toting a gun around, especially with the dangers that many people tend to overlook.

 

Such as, if you had a gun in your house to protect your family from harm, where would you put it? Would you put it in an easily accessible place so that when danger presents itself the weapon would live up to its usefulness, but then risking other members of the family discovering it and harming someone accidentally? (Children come to mind) Or, would you put it in a safe where children are unable to get it, but then the weapon becomes obsolete because it takes too much time to retrieve it from the safe place?

 

 

[Princess Artemis]

Ron Paul has a pro-life agenda, but under the American constitution that doesn't mean jack crap. He has no say in the matter.

That's one thing I like about him. Not the agenda so much as the fact that it would be irrelevant. He has some goofy ideas but because he's so strongly pro-Constitution, I feel he'd be the best not to go ramming speed with them and let the process work.

 

Politicians like to treat everyone as if we are two separate nations that are at war and will never be united.

 

I get this feeling very strongly from Obama, much more so than I do from some others. He quite often speaks in "us" and "them", "we" and "they" language, when "us" is Americans and "they"...are Americans, too. That's not the way to speak of a nation that is united.

 

I'm not going to say anything about you supporting him; I'm glad you like him. I don't see him that way though. He strikes me as having a lot of style but the substance just isn't there.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Daydreamer09]

Politicians like to treat everyone as if we are two separate nations that are at war and will never be united.

 

I get this feeling very strongly from Obama, much more so than I do from some others. He quite often speaks in "us" and "them", "we" and "they" language, when "us" is Americans and "they"...are Americans, too. That's not the way to speak of a nation that is united.

 

I'm not going to say anything about you supporting him; I'm glad you like him. I don't see him that way though. He strikes me as having a lot of style but the substance just isn't there.

I agree to this in terms of his speeches. He relies too much upon his speech writers in my opinion and I think they probably are more at fault than he is.

 

Obama has for the most part, always creates a rhythm to his speeches. I noticed that the first time I listened to him. He has a rise and fall; similar to crescendo and decrescendo in music. That said, whenever I listened to him in the past during the campaign trail, his speeches came across as vague to me and not very concrete.

 

And what's wrong about voting for Mickey Mouse? It says a lot when I put more trust into a cartoon character than any of the candidates. Anyways, I don't want to vote in the coming election this year. Judge me all you want, but the way I feel about Obama, Romney and Santorum, it'd just be a waste.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Daydreamer09

[philpot123]

I believe in gun control, and a mandate of some sort that criminal records have to be approved in order for someone to possess a firearm. But I think it's a little much for everyone to be toting a gun around, especially with the dangers that many people tend to overlook.

 

Such as, if you had a gun in your house to protect your family from harm, where would you put it? Would you put it in an easily accessible place so that when danger presents itself the weapon would live up to its usefulness, but then risking other members of the family discovering it and harming someone accidentally? (Children come to mind) Or, would you put it in a safe where children are unable to get it, but then the weapon becomes obsolete because it takes too much time to retrieve it from the safe place?

When buying from a legitimate dealer, you have to pass a background check. If you have a violent offense such as assault, or any sort of felony, you cannot purchase a firearm in any state. That's the legitimate side of it, how law abiding citizens would choose to go about it. Gun control would ONLY affect those legitimate dealers, dealers that already do their best to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Gun control would NOT affect the back alley deals and craigslist style purchases that are made every day to purchase weapons that often are illegal for ANYONE to possess, like fully automatics. Do you see what I'm saying? Strict gun control will only affect the people who bother to go through the proper channels anyways, which is something a criminal wouldn't do because either they COULDN'T, or they don't want to leave a paper trail.

 

As far as where to put it, that's case by case. Obviously if there are children in the house, particular cautions must be taken. In my case, there are no kids in my house and there aren't ever any that visit, so my gun sits right next to my head with a clip inside, without a chambered round. It takes me about 5 seconds to rack the slide and have it ready to go. If a child was to come into my house, it would be stored in an out of reach location with a gun lock on it, and if someone happens to break in at that point I'm just screwed. As for HAVING children, there is a safe that already has a good track record for home defense that's made to sit on a bedside table. You slap it, it reads your prints and opens quickly, and the gun is accessible. Technology solves lots of problems

[Kelkelen]

As for HAVING children, there is a safe that already has a good track record for home defense that's made to sit on a bedside table. You slap it, it reads your prints and opens quickly, and the gun is accessible. Technology solves lots of problems

Heeeey, that's really cool! I'm glad to know it exists -- thanks for sharing!

[lanaura]

I think this basically sums up politics

 

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=1639

[Rosedamai]

http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly...g/&id=146855045

 

Santorum basically ends his campaign. Woohoo!

Edited April 11, 2012 by ylangylang

[Kelkelen]

http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly...g/&id=146855045

 

Santorum basically ends his campaogn. Woohoi!

YESSSSSS!!!

[KageSora]

Glad as I am that he's doing that, I'm very sorry for the reason he decided this was the best course of action.

[Vhale]

I wouldn't be surprised if he was back next cycle. Especially if Romney doesn't win, I think they'll push harder for a more conservative candidate.

 

Now I guess we wait to see who the VP pick is. I'll fall out of my chair if it's Palin. I don't think much of her. And how much he tries to Etch-A-Sketch things.

 

As to the gun control, I wouldn't mind training be required. Guns deserve at least that much respect. I had to take a 3 month class to drive a car before I could drive. And I'd like to think people would be less afraid of them if they had to have some familiarity with them. Granted, in my fantasy world, it would be nice as part of public schooling that one/two semesters were spent on giving back to the community and learning basic skills. How to do basic home/auto repairs, CPR, ROTC etc.

 

It is really odd to hear about kids getting suspended etc though about having a gun rack in their pickup. I can't help but wonder if Columbine and the accounts of people going postal made people too paranoid. When I want to junior high we had a woodshop class. Using gas welders, arc welders, band saws, table saws For out final project our teacher had the draw outs and dimensions of both a M16 and an AK-47. We could pick out one or the other, and we had to reproduce it in wood using the various tools. And it had to be to scale and no breaks, glue globs, all nicely sanded. So, our entire class when we were done, were carrying around replica assault weapons and all painted black. To and from school. I mixed parts between the two guns and got a 98 because I tilted it when it was drying and the barrel got a tiny bit crooked. The wood glue has worn out and it's come apart for a couple pieces now, but I still have mine. I was quite proud of that thing. I'm willing to bet that class does not do that anymore, if it even still exists. heh.

[Princess Artemis]

In California, training is required. Not a great deal, but enough to make sure the prospective owner knows how to operate the gun. I know several states have fairly extensive training reqs for concealed carry permits.

 

And...I had to take CPR in high school too. Took woodshop in junior high. There was auto shop in high school and no one graduates without a certain amount of community service performed.

 

Can't say I'm sorry to hear Santorum begging off. Alas Ron Paul has no chance. *sigh*

[Zephyrgirl]

I believe in gun control, and a mandate of some sort that criminal records have to be approved in order for someone to possess a firearm. But I think it's a little much for everyone to be toting a gun around, especially with the dangers that many people tend to overlook.

Even if the government did find a way to take guns away from all civillians, it wouldn't fix the problem. We would still have criminals who wouldn't let the lack of a gun stop them. Then we would have to take away all knives and sharp objects and they would go to fists. You can't very well take a person's hands away, now, can you? The problem is not the guns, it's the people who abuse them.

Also, when my dad got his license to carry, he had to take training and a test that showed that he was able to handle it. Add this with all you go through just to get a gun in the first place and I would say an irresponsible killer is not going to get by with getting a gun the honest way. Most weapons used by crooks are either stolen or sold in an illegal manner.

This is just my personal observation, I don't have any statistics or anything. Still, I've observed that in the city where I live, the areas where people are allowed to carry guns seem to have a lower crime rate than the areas, such as the college campuses, where guns are not allowed. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. Are they going to all of a sudden respect the restrictions regarding weapons?

Just my take on it.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Zephyrgirl

[Vhale]

I'm afraid our trade type classes suffered some budget axes. Things like auto-shop, they had to maintain equipment and insurance. It really is a shame because it was also a cheap way to get your car fixed if you "volunteered" it.

 

We have to take classes for concealed carry here, but just owning a gun, nothing really.

 

I admit, I think I liked Ron Paul the best out of the lot. Not that I agreed with all his policies, but that I find him candid. I never felt like he stuck to a point because it was popular or convenient, but because he truly believed in it. He just doesn't seem like a person that could be pushed around by lobbyists.

[philpot123]

The Supreme Court of the United States just upheld the individual healthcare mandate. Me personally, I think it's pretty sad that our government thinks it's permissible to coerce citizens into behaviors under our constitution, because I'm pretty sure if you read the federalist papers, the guys who wrote it wouldn't agree. But that's just me...

 

and a lot of other people...

[LadyLyzar]

I also am very disappointed that it was upheld and apparently through a loophole. Apparently it's unconstitutional to uphold the mandate through the (often abused IMO) Commerce Clause, but they can still do it by calling the mandate a tax.

 

Remember how we heard over and over that the mandate wasn't a tax? Interesting.

 

I hope this monstrosity is repealed and ASAP but it just got much harder to do.

[Alpha1]

The Supreme Court of the United States just upheld the individual healthcare mandate. Me personally, I think it's pretty sad that our government thinks it's permissible to coerce citizens into behaviors under our constitution, because I'm pretty sure if you read the federalist papers, the guys who wrote it wouldn't agree. But that's just me...

 

At first I thought the mandate wasn't upheld because CNN reported that initially, and then it suddenly changed. Don't know how they made that mistake.

 

The ironic part about it was that Roberts gave the key vote, yet he was appointed by George Dubya.

 

Kennedy gave a harsh dissent, "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

 

That would have made a lot of people upset.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Alpha1

[Princess Artemis]

I cannot say just how furious I am, actually, that I know there will not only be people happy to rob my family to pay for other people's bad habits (oh, they'll say it's for other things, moral busybodies always do, but let's be realistic here--its to pay for the older gent who had a heart attack because he refused to stopped shoveling Big Macs and is probably out there with a lawsuit against McD's too for stealing his free will), but that the Supreme Court has said that the Constitution allows this.

 

I've never wanted out of this sad excuse for what used to be a pretty good country more than I do today. Disappointed does not even begin to describe how I'm feeling about this.