Death of the constitution

[RaidrX]

Ya know, you never really know how well a President is doing until after his presidency. The funny part is all you anti-Bush people will think you were so right after he leaves if the country starts to prosper. Now, I am not saying he is a great president, nor am I saying he is any good at all, but there are so many other worse choices.

We could always have ahmadinejad as our countries leader...

 

[Arctyrael]

I think all this crap is rediculous. Nothing will happen while America stays 2 party system. If anyone but Barack Obama is nominated I am voting for the Independent candidate.

However, I'll just point out I find it quite the other way around in regards to Obama vs. Hillary. She may have some experience on the international front, but Obama has a better regard for foreign affairs. If he makes it to the presidency, he will have the bite to back up his campaign. I don't want that power hungry bitch in office.

 

[Firestreak]

Better regard? He's a fucking nutcase. Hilldog is where my money is for the Dems. I wish McCain was going to win the Republican primary though, I'd be pretty enthusiastic about him as our president.

 

[Reeve]

Ron Paul has the best chance against Hillary or Obama if he wins the republican primary...

• As a republican, Ron Paul has the an amazing amount of support from democrats. More so than any other candidate on the republican or democratic side.
• There is no way in hell a republican will vote for a democrat (or vice versa with RP being the exception) so he will gather the full support of the republican base for the election.
• He is also pro-life (believing it to be an issue for the states to decide), so he will get vote of the religious right/

Ron Paul is making waves... here is an excerpt from tomorrows Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html

When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it's clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.

That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him -- and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

--snip--

Such positions may not be fully consistent or equally attractive, but Paul's insistence on a constitutionally limited government has won applause from surprising quarters. Singer Barry Manilow donated the maximum $2,300 to his campaign; the hipster singer-songwriter John Mayer was videotaped yelling "Ron Paul knows the Constitution!" and 67,000 people have signed up for Paul-related Meet Up pages on the Internet. On ABC's "This Week" recently, George Will half-jokingly cautioned his fellow pundits, "Don't forget my man Ron Paul" in the New Hampshire primary. Fellow panelist Jake Tapper seconded the emotion, saying, "He really is the one true straight talker in this race."

Yet Paul's success has mostly left the mainstream media and pundits flustered, if not openly hostile. The Associated Press recently treated the Paul phenomenon like an alien life form: "The Texas libertarian's rise in the polls and in fundraising proves that a small but passionate number of Americans can be drawn to an advocate of unorthodox proposals." Republican pollster Frank Luntz has denounced Paul's supporters as "the equivalent of crabgrass . . . not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff." And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."

When conservatives feel comfortable mocking the victims gunned down by Clinton-era attorney general Janet Reno's FBI in Waco, Tex., in 1993, it suggests that a complacent and increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened.

For the first time ever, we have a chance to vote for someone based on principle and not because they happen to be the lesser of two evils.

 

[Dejavu]

Well this is pretty much obvious since the Constitution does not allow a person to serve more than 2 elected terms or 10 years as President.

Yea but its just a god damned piece of paper so who knows whats going to happen in the next year.

Hillary is a far better choice than Obama, even if she's not great, she at least knows what she's doing kind of on the international front. The Clintons are also fiscally responsible for Democrats.

If she has a glaring weakness, it's her support of late term abortion. I don't think a lot of people are going to be able to accept that.

Hillary is the worst choice for the country right now honestly. If you think that the Clintons are fiscally responsible you are sadly mistaking Bill for Hillary. Hillary wants to give every newborn $5000, do universal healthcare, continue on our current foreign policy along with other things that will only do one of two things and probably both. Increase the national debt and increase taxes. (especially with that fucktard Nancy Pelosi in the passenger seat)

We *do* seem to be full of trigger-happy asshat cops these days, don't we?

Sadly it is true in this country that anything that can be abused will be abused which is why I am a believer that this is a problem.

I still say McCain is better or.. er.. why can't I remember his name.. the democrat who was going against Dole back 8 years for the Democratic candidate, hehe.

Personally, I'm just waiting for the next depression to hit so a revolution can start up and oust the corrupt powers and take wealth from the upper class strangling the middle and lower class... :|

Well I honestly dont think that McCain is a good choice for the presidency because he seems to think that the government should control everything although he doesn't seem to be stating this right now. The reason that i will say this is because of his position on steroids in baseball which i think he handled fairly poorly by calling for MLB to be regulated for drug use by the federal government. With this in mind he and I have fundamental differences in the ideas about the roles of government and i'd honestly like to vote for him cause i'm from his home state. The other issue that i have with him is that he is the only cantidate that seems to be more of a war monger than Bush and in all honesty he has staked his campaign on this war turning around in a big way very quickly.

Lets move on to the next one that you are trying to name which I believe is Thompson. Honestly i dont like Thompson but i dont think that he is the worst choice by any means. He seems to have positioned himself a little too strongly with the Christian right for my liking though and i really dont want to be looked over by someone who is overly religious.

Guliani... Worthless his approval rating in NYC was shit for a reason pre 9/11 yet somehow the way that he managed NYC through 9/11 qualifies him to be the president... NO. I am a believer that you should serve some kind of a national position before you go for president and mayor of NYC is hardly a national position. Also i hardly think that someone who has be traumatized by an event on a personal level not just the nationalistic level that everyone else has. Personal trama will cause overreaction and we need someone level headed

Romney. Mormon values for everyone ... i think not. Plus i'm not a fan of people using their personal fortunes to try to buy an election.

Ron Paul.. responcible spending.. ending the war.. stop inflation. Sure i dont care for his stance on abortion but you know what i can deal with that

As for any of the democrats... universal healthcare will nearly kill this country socailism is the first step to communism.

It really seems to me that this is just an attempt to get some searches in that would otherwise be difficult or outright impossible under the guise of "OMG TEH CHILDARN", and I doubt the focus will be entirely on guns as well, but that's another issue entirely.

The fact that the police are making rounds like this to begin with is iffy, in my opinion, and arguably IS against the 4th amendment. Yeah, you can turn the search down no matter what, but they shouldn't be there to begin with. Also the fact that they may not mention it, and some police officers react... badly when you tell them no, even if you are entirely within your rights.

All in all, this is a horrible idea, but throw "It's for the kids!" on the end, and people will eat it up, just like every god damned thing else.

Sadly true once again.. same way they are trying to get the SChip passed... well its for the kids.

Seriously? Not a good stance to take on politics. You *should* care who holds that office. Not saying you have to, but you should. I definitely would care if someone like...say, Pat Robertson ended up as President, or Tom DeLay (both as likely as me winning the Presidency - see what I did there?).

As for this article entirely, yes, it's warrantless searches. However, so are any searches initiated at a school, workplace, or even in the home.

The kids are not the head of the house, ergo they have zero say in the matter. Their parents and guardians do, and they are given the option to say "no thanks, I know what my kids are doing".

If the cops were breaking down doors pseudo-arresting the caregivers and searching the rooms of those children, then that's a different story altogether.

Also - this is not a Federal matter. It's city police initiating the searches, ergo this *would* fall under the jurisdiction of Amendment 10. Federal Agents are not strongarming those people (and, to be frank, neither are the city police), so the Constitution has little pull in the case...yet.

Of course, it will end up being tied in the court system for years to come, and probably will take the time of the Supreme Court, all the while draining some more tax money. Cheers to that, but hey~ it's what we pay them to do.

This is a federal matter for the fact that there is an amendment written expressly to govern this matter. Sadly this will go to the courts and to be honest its a technicality.

 

[Firestreak]

Bill, Hillary, what's the difference? He's going to be in charge anyway if she's elected.

 

[Reeve]

Who really wants to see a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton presidential history?

 

[Firestreak]

I don't mind. I kinda like the Bush and the Clinton family. If nothing else they keep us entertained. Who knows, maybe after Hillary, we can get Jeb in next. Then finish it off with a little Chelsea, by that point she'll be old enough maybe.

 

[Dejavu]

technically there has been a bush or a clinton in the whitehouse since 1980 since he was regan's vice.

Firestreak your political comments continue to scare the hell out of me

 

[Firestreak]

Lol, they're not done yet.

 

[Trippyhippy]

There is nothing wrong with Hillary. Everyone that has mentioned her has just called her names except for Firestreak and said how she would be a horrible president. No one has mentioned why, and there is a reason for that.

 

[Firestreak]

Ironic considering I'm probably one of the few die-hard Republicans on this board.

 

[Dejavu]

Hillary is the worst choice for the country right now honestly. If you think that the Clintons are fiscally responsible you are sadly mistaking Bill for Hillary. Hillary wants to give every newborn $5000, do universal healthcare, continue on our current foreign policy along with other things that will only do one of two things and probably both. Increase the national debt and increase taxes. (especially with that fucktard Nancy Pelosi in the passenger seat)

Reading comprehension?

 

[Elemmire]

Hilary just doesn't seem like she really has any exact thought on somethings, just that she wants power and to be the first female president for history's sake. That's just how it seems to me. I mean, I've seen her change her political views in the past about things, hehe. *shrugs* I still would rather see McCaine or Bradley (That's who I was thinking about I think). But I'm not entirely sure on either, I like them more than the other candidates in 2000 there were, lol.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Reading comprehension?

Hillary wants to give every newborn $5000, do universal healthcare,

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a bad thing.

continue on our current foreign policy

That part is 100% wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=061101000930.r1cha3r4&show_article=1
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/2008presidentialrace/p/hclinton.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm

Where did you get your info that she wants to "continue on our current foreign policy"?

along with other things that will only do one of two things and probably both. Increase the national debt and increase taxes.

So. Out of the past 20 years, reagan and bush increased the national defecit by unreal amounts. Clinton, the democrat, fixed that. Then the current administration racked up more deficit than any other administration ever. So, now Clinton, the Democrat is going to do what all the republicans did? If your statement made any sense at all I may consider giving you a real response.

(especially with that fucktard Nancy Pelosi in the passenger seat)

Is "fucktard" your own special way of criticizing her stance on Stem Cell research or something?

 

[Valandil]

WRONG! The constitution states nothing about how many terms a president can have. It was only made as an amendment or something (I forget which) after FDR was president for more than 2 terms. The reason so many presidents were only in office two terms or less is because General Washington was only president for two terms. We praise him in that way, same way if we create a 6 Star General, Washington gets bumped up to a 7 star. Hehe.. it's funny.

I still say McCain is better or.. er.. why can't I remember his name.. the democrat who was going against Dole back 8 years for the Democratic candidate, hehe.

Personally, I'm just waiting for the next depression to hit so a revolution can start up and oust the corrupt powers and take wealth from the upper class strangling the middle and lower class... :|

Last time I checked, amendments are part of the Constitution genius, thus the term AMENDMENT.

 

[Firestreak]

Well, Pelosi really is a bit of a bitch. Then again she's from San Francisco so that probably can't be helped.

 

[Lanien]

WRONG! The constitution states nothing about how many terms a president can have. It was only made as an amendment or something (I forget which) after FDR was president for more than 2 terms. The reason so many presidents were only in office two terms or less is because General Washington was only president for two terms. We praise him in that way, same way if we create a 6 Star General, Washington gets bumped up to a 7 star. Hehe.. it's funny.

I still say McCain is better or.. er.. why can't I remember his name.. the democrat who was going against Dole back 8 years for the Democratic candidate, hehe.

Personally, I'm just waiting for the next depression to hit so a revolution can start up and oust the corrupt powers and take wealth from the upper class strangling the middle and lower class... :|

Yeah, an amendment to the Constitution after WWII is what limited a presidency to 2 terms. You are correct about the Washington thing too. ALthough it wasn't required to leave after 2 terms, it was basically a "Washington did it, so the rest of us will too". I actually find that to be a pretty cool thing. Washington must have been quite the dude.

 

[Lanien]

There is nothing wrong with Hillary. Everyone that has mentioned her has just called her names except for Firestreak and said how she would be a horrible president. No one has mentioned why, and there is a reason for that.

She's a woman. I don't mean that to be sexist. I just don't think it will fly as much as people think it will.

 

[Elemmire]

Yeah, an amendment to the Constitution after WWII is what limited a presidency to 2 terms. You are correct about the Washington thing too. ALthough it wasn't required to leave after 2 terms, it was basically a "Washington did it, so the rest of us will too". I actually find that to be a pretty cool thing. Washington must have been quite the dude.

Washington was cool but I don't think he deserves the near deification he has achieved. He spent most of the war running away and he, by no means, created our country and government on his own. I just don't think anyone deserves deification, but *shrugs* ah well.. that's off topic.