Election of 2012....Who ya got?
- Thread starter AE14
- Start date
mich29
Board Sponsor
I lol'ed
ax1
Legend
This is his final run, if he doesnt make it he will no longer run for congress.
Zero V
Well-known member
Damn shame. He may not be perfect, but to me he is the best of what is out there.
Although he has much greater support than people think he does. I still hate the fact the media blacks him out, but I love the fact you cant watch youtube videos without seeing the start of a 17 minute ad for him.
My worries are that even if he did win, they would nullify it and declare someone else the winner.
DerickVonD
Well-known member
Doesn't Ron still get the most delegates out of Minnesota though? I am still confused on the whole dlegate thing. From what I heard is Paul is getting the most delegate supporters and even though Romney has been winning and is eligible for more delegates, no one is willing to be a delegate for him. Someone please explain all this too me. Also I love Ron, but part of me wishes Rand was running instead. Rand seems much more assertive than his dad, I think Ron can be too nice at times and that discourages people I think. Rand just seems like the type of guy that wouldn't take much ****.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
True, but I can honestly say that I wouldn't mind a president that is considerate and compassionate. A man can still be a man and defend what is his and be kind to others simuiltaneously. It's a rare combination but the most effective one I believe. I feel like RP would be slower to speak and quicker to forgive than any other president that we've seen in office. We don't just need a president competent to get us out of economic trouble, we also need a role model for once. Haven't seen a decent leader in office since I was born actually.
Looking back on all of this I laugh at what we (Americans) have brought on ourselves. We wanted "change". Boy did we get it, lol! I think people were voting for Obama just for the sake of change, whether it was good or bad change. The first thing my business professors taught us about implementing changes is that "not all change is good change". Careful planning, accurate data and good decision-making processes are key to success in knowing what to change and how to do it. None of these aspects are found in the white house, yet, the white house probably has the most structured policy and procedure guidelines compared to any other business out there. It's called the Constitution. RP is a man that understands the problem and also knows where to find the solution (Constitution). Not a single candidate out there has or will have the same approach as him. He is a rare and properly educated candidate imo that is too old to have selfish ambitions. His age hedges against selfishness if you ask me.
ax1
Legend
What part is irrelevant to you?
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Yeah really, what part? It's a quick read if you just read the original constitution, AE.
There are a few things that aren't relevant like the Navy's purpose in controlling the seas (that part doesn't matter anymore) and maybe a few amendments but other than that the Constitution is still a sound solution to our problems I believe. It outlines the purpose of each entity of government very well , IMO. In fact, I think any amendment that conflicts with the original document should be repealed since it renders the document useless. It was the thinking that the Constitution was out of date or irrelevant is what got us into this heap of mess over time. I'm not saying Obama or democrats are solely to blame either. This has been a long time coming since early 1900's really and countless administrations have screwed up royally trying to make central government bigger and states and local governments smaller.
As far as the orignal document, it's golden really and sets up a crazy, almost unfathomable amount of freedom for men to live as they prefer. Granted, it does not in any way encourage unruly lifestyle but it does give morale, social ethics and certain religions a chance to thrive and dictate people's lifestyles rather than the government forcing that certain lifestyle on men in an oppressive, law-based society.
I like the original structure of having a series of "mini-countries" made up of States that are universally protected by the Federal government not only by outsiders but also protected from each other in the form in the Interstate Trade Commerce act. However, our government has abused the ITC to gain further control of our country. 'If they can't control us, they'll control our money'. At least that is what the feds figured and it has worked well in their favor.
ax1
Legend
You say 3/5, but Ill take the 3/5 over the 0.25/5 that is still actually still considered valid by the white house.
ax1
Legend
Ok,
Yo u sa y 3/5, but I ll ta ke the 3/5 o ver the 0.25 /5 that is still act u ally st ill co ns i dere d valid by th e white h ou se.
j/k
I meant if the government actually followed 3/5 of the constitution instead of the fact they have discarded it almost in its entirety this would be a much better situation to be in.
ax1
Legend
Because it has been done so already....Should we follow, or not?....nah lets put it in a museum and just tell people they are free.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
ew ew I know the answer to that one!
The issues left out of the document was not to be discussed or regulated the national government. The federal system had very limited power for a reason - so the states could decide for themselves what specific laws to have. Thats why they were considered "mini-nations" as I stated before. This is the only way (for example) that California can adopt strong, progressive laws and where states like Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas can adopt strong conservative laws of the land without having national issues. The laws of each land was a reflection of the people of that land. Now, the federal government tries to represent everyone of every state with such a small group of congressman, lobbyists and media and its nearly impossible to do. The feds were never supposed to address the issues other than national protection and interstate trading.
EasyEJL
Never enough
AE14 said:
What's outdated? The second amendment surely isn't. Among reasons it was put in place as an additional check on unrestrained government power grabs.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Disarming the people allows the government to do whatever it pleases. If you can use the argument that we should attack Iran to make sure they don't get nuclear weapons, then surely you can understand the American people retreading access to arms to avoid a president overstepping their boundaries and attempting to be even more of a dictator than Obama is.
EasyEJL
Never enough
The constitution was written to limit federal power as much as possible. it lists what Congress is allowed to do, and the ways they are not to interfere with individual liberties. It even specifically states that any powers not directly stated in the document are reserved for the states to have power over.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Correct! That directly supports my point earlier stating that issues not covered in the Constitution are to be handled by each individual state in their own way.
I think the debate over the Constitutions effectiveness really lies in the question of whether or not you have read the actual document and not relied on what ur 9th grade American history teacher said. I think anyone who has attentively read the Constitution would agree that it gives very clear direction in the macro-government aspects of this nation.
ax1
Legend
The Constitution is simply being marketed and attacked as a outdated thing of the past and they blame the problems today on the Constitution when reality is the problems of today are due to the illegal activities of the government against the Constitution's wishes. The corporate government has unofficially declared war against the constitution and their own monopolized mainstream resources are their mouthpiece, their missiles and weaponry of attack against it.
Here is an example on how the media is incrementally conditioning the average viewer that the Constitution is a outdated ineffective thing of the past. Just a few days ago, the Wall Street Journal posted an article entitled "'We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World" One part that sticks out is this quote that sums it all up, "The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights." In my interpenetration of this quote along with the rest of the article they attempt to lead the reader to believe the international (NWO) standards gives more rights than the Constitution.
Invalid Link Removed
Here is another major example with Council of Foreign Relations remember, and out cozy speaking CNN anchorman on Sunday Mornings Fareed Zakaria blaming issues nothing to do with the Constitution such as the tax code on the Constitution.
[video=youtube;WitbMg7Awyc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WitbMg7Awyc[/video]
And here he is with another attack piece making the Constitution appear as a thing of the past and that it needs to be corrected (at a time its not even put into use anymore.)
[video=youtube;cd9FfR2B5Rc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd9FfR2B5Rc[/video]
Here is an example on how the media is incrementally conditioning the average viewer that the Constitution is a outdated ineffective thing of the past. Just a few days ago, the Wall Street Journal posted an article entitled "'We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World" One part that sticks out is this quote that sums it all up, "The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights." In my interpenetration of this quote along with the rest of the article they attempt to lead the reader to believe the international (NWO) standards gives more rights than the Constitution.
Invalid Link Removed
Here is another major example with Council of Foreign Relations remember, and out cozy speaking CNN anchorman on Sunday Mornings Fareed Zakaria blaming issues nothing to do with the Constitution such as the tax code on the Constitution.
[video=youtube;WitbMg7Awyc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WitbMg7Awyc[/video]
And here he is with another attack piece making the Constitution appear as a thing of the past and that it needs to be corrected (at a time its not even put into use anymore.)
[video=youtube;cd9FfR2B5Rc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd9FfR2B5Rc[/video]
southpaw23
Well-known member
Fareed Zakaria, is actually a highly educated/bright guy. I'd say his opinion is actually informed as opposed to some others.
ax1
Legend
Of course he is very educated, but that is no indicator of a persons intentions (Mao Tse Tung is educated). Fareed is a part of the corporate elite underground. He is a Council of Foreign Relations member as the top secret Bilderberg group and supports the elimination of the constutition and sovereignty of the United States to a World Government. Also want to mention he is a member of the Trilateral Commission. He is the mouthpiece of the most evil people currently on the planet and an enemy of this country.
southpaw23
Well-known member
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
ax1
Legend
No, not because of his view but because of his memberships and connections. Your not evil, you are not affilitated with the people he is affilitated with.
Im not a conspiracy theorist, I hate conspiracy theories.
Anyways the Bilderberger group Council of foreign relations are a part of the corporate elite who are economically destroying the USA and controlling Washington and I can assure you they have no interest in you or the sovereignty of this country.
southpaw23
Well-known member
How much Glenn Beck can one guy possibly watch? You know he holds about the same amount of education, as the guy who changed my tire last week...just saying.
FYI- For a guy who claims not to be into conspiracy theories, no offense, you post the wackiest youtube videos made by some guy in his mom's basement.
ax1
Legend
I dislike Glenn Beck as well as much as I dislike Fareed. They are both evil.
ax1
Legend
lol, relax man I wish you get to know me a little better. I dont want any one to believe what I say in the first place. I only present issues and want people to do their own research and make their own conclusions. If they disagree with me I welcome that and I love it when people ask questions about the issues, and present different sides of the story.
My only issue is when people brand people a "conspiracy theorist" or associate me with people I totally dislike such as Glenn Beck as a easy way to discredit the issues I put forth on the table. I do not for example consider you evil for agreeing with Fareed's views, I only judge people on their personal intent. I have no doubt in my mind Southpaw that your intentions are good, but please dont attack people on the board specifically and brand them a certain label or slogan as a way to discredit the issues they spend so much time trying to lay on the table.
All Im saying is attack the issues not each other
southpaw23
Well-known member
Fair enough and I wasn't attacking you personally (I don't know you outside of a forum), it was more so your consistent use of obscure youtube videos, that you deem as "evidence" of something, and using words like "evil" to describe certain people, which will invite some form of criticism. For the record, I am very liberal and no I don't own a shark tank, or have them outfitted with laser beams on their heads. I usually stay out of these political threads, as I realized early on that these political forums are comprised of 99.9% Tim Tebowers, if you get where I'm going with that. Anyway hope all is well man.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Somebody show me where the Constitution is the cause of this jacked up tax code...I hope ur not referring to the 16th amendment because that stupid amendment was added by an extreme socialist back in 1913, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had every intention of advancing socialism and uprooting capitalism.
Its time people start putting their money where their mouth is. Show us explicitly where the Constitution is wrong! I'm also well educated but particularly on the matter about the Constitution. The original document (not amendments) actually outlines an equal or "flat" taxation system. Its the very first allowance the Constitution gives the Federal government. It can be found in Article 1 Section 8, where the role of the federal government is located...
As I said before, I think the issue is not whether u stand with or against the Constitution but rather if you've read the actual document or not. The document itself is the fairest of them all and if we pull away from it we're not going to be America anymore. We'll just be another socialist country with a failing economy...
Its time people start putting their money where their mouth is. Show us explicitly where the Constitution is wrong! I'm also well educated but particularly on the matter about the Constitution. The original document (not amendments) actually outlines an equal or "flat" taxation system. Its the very first allowance the Constitution gives the Federal government. It can be found in Article 1 Section 8, where the role of the federal government is located...
As I said before, I think the issue is not whether u stand with or against the Constitution but rather if you've read the actual document or not. The document itself is the fairest of them all and if we pull away from it we're not going to be America anymore. We'll just be another socialist country with a failing economy...
AE14
Board Sponsor
First......this thread took an interesting turn. I have been to a CFR speech previously. Truly, nothing of mention went on, and I was not indoctrinated in anything.....or was I
Fueled, you can make the specific requirements not amendments. The dcoument as a whole is what is in discussion. So yes, even the nonsense of Wilson is up for discussion, and yes, it outlines a terrible flaw in the system.
Furthermore, to me I think the 2nd amendment is a problem. The vague nature destroys its validity. By putting it in, it is taken out of any 10th amendment consideration. So we look at federally (in essence) and because it is so vague, we are stuck with defining militia, safety of a free state, etc...
It is not a perfect document, and to be honest, is not the end all for the 21st century.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Btw that second video actually presented some decent amendments. But understand something folks...amendments are put in place TO EVENTUALLY BE CHANGED AND REVISED. The Articles of the Constitution are NOT to be changed. Furthermore, if an amendment contradicts the articles then it should be removed because it renders the most important aspects of our government structure (the articles) useless.
Otherwise amendments are gtg, IMO. I personally think we should limit all seats in congress to 6 years to stop career politicians.
Otherwise amendments are gtg, IMO. I personally think we should limit all seats in congress to 6 years to stop career politicians.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
But does that mean I shouldnt hunt anymore? And does that means I cant defend my family against physical threats from thieves and criminals that break into my home? Can I not have a concealed weapon permit to protect myself from the criminals who dont live by the laws anyways? I feel taking the second amendment away just disarms the upright and innocent. It doesnt do jack for the criminals - they'll still carry weapons and use them against harmless people. Where does the line get drawn?
I have lots of guns, but none of them are primarily weapons. However, if there was ever an invasion in our country or a civil war, people would be coming to my place to survive since I have the guns, the ammo, and the reloading stations as well and a good heart to protect innocent men and women. I could make a stand for at least a few years if I needed to...
I have lots of guns, but none of them are primarily weapons. However, if there was ever an invasion in our country or a civil war, people would be coming to my place to survive since I have the guns, the ammo, and the reloading stations as well and a good heart to protect innocent men and women. I could make a stand for at least a few years if I needed to...
AE14
Board Sponsor
I understand your sentiment, however it doesn't address the issue. The fact is, 2nd amend. is vague and difficult one way or the other. I do understand how the Courts have found, but as always, they have contradicted themselves time and again.
My point is....certain aspects of the Constitution create more problems than they should.
southpaw23
Well-known member
1000% agreed.
DerickVonD
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
AE14
Board Sponsor
Dont agree entirely. I think your statement is an issue in part, however, it is sometimes not applicable to the modern world. Our founding "parents" could not have foreseen the issues of the 21st century, and did the best they could to assist is mediating them. However, foresight goes only so far
ax1
Legend
We can deal these issues without taking away peoples liberties and installing a complete and total police state of legalized spying (patriot act,) detaining of Americans without access to a lawyer or trial indefinitely (NDAA act), completely changing the governments structure of government with unelected officials (Super Committee), income tax, decreased sovreignty of the states with expansion of federal powers, going to wars without even consulting congress, the private Federal Reserve banking cartel and the elimination of the gold/silver backed currency, ok enough with the run-on ax your typing to a school teacher here, lol.
EasyEJL
Never enough
Even given there are issues that they didn't foresee, their model was based on individual states attempting to fix those things, not an overreaching federal government. And when a state in attempting to fix those intruded on the rights (or created bias against products from) another state, that was the point at which the federal government was supposed to become involved.
The larger the country has become, the more valid that point has become rather than the reverse.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Exactly which is what I have been trying to say for the past few days lol. I dont get why its so hard to understand...
The problem with the constitution being outdated or up for modifications would never have happened had the federal government followed the structure layed out for them, which was simply to be a mediator between states and a defense against enemies of the states. Period. It all got complicated when socialist movements started occurring and the feds took away state's power thru a series of unforunate turn of events like 17th amendment, abusing the power under the ITC act, etc...
southpaw23
Well-known member
Except in the case of, Jan Brewer, an overachieving 2 year community college graduate turned governor, who's social agenda is sought after in the guise of enacting state "law", in my humble opinion, individuals like this need to be checked. A woman who would otherwise be tasked with ordering printer cartridges if she wasn't voted in as governor, requires broad supervision.
EasyEJL
Never enough
Again, just like with the president, the governor of a state doesn't pass any laws, just signs them....
The state's own legislature and residents are the check. Because you happen to dislike a law doesn't mean that a majority of the state's residents dislike it.
southpaw23
Well-known member
And residents don't have an immediate impact, once a law(s) is enacted, until the next election cycle, often the "check" comes much later and at a steep price. I understand how state government and federal government operate.