Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Do Girls Wanna date a guy with kids?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 124 (view)
 
Do Girls Wanna date a guy with kids?
Posted: 10/24/2011 10:52:24 PM
I have been told many times "I am sorry, I am not ready for an instant family." so No I dont think women want to date men with kids.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Climate bill showdown: Obama, Dems pressing hard
Posted: 7/3/2009 10:29:59 PM
"Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, angry at the Keynesian spenders, confided to his diary May 1939: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.”

He also said this to congress... yep Obama and FDR
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 59 (view)
 
The New America
Posted: 7/3/2009 10:27:17 PM
i think it is extreamly sad that number one so many of you dont recognize satire when you read it, second have so limited of an idea of what the constitution allows, and frankly what it doesnt allow. And finally how some of you who have had talks with me in the past can forget my views on such basic things as the constitution and the original intent of the framers. Some of you saw the truth, although only one of my favored "opponets" did. But that some of you who have talked on my side in the past couldnt see it, is a shame.
The constitution doesnt allow the government to do any of the things i mentioned. Read it, and then try to justify all that. Good luck.
Socialism, or progressives have abused the constitution since the times of FDR. THey have bypassed the rule of law this nation was founded on, and made the constitution virtually worthless. As one Supreame Court Justice said in the last 20years, reasoning like this leads to the idea that congress can do what ever it wants where ever it wants.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Who actually pays corporate taxes??
Posted: 7/3/2009 10:14:30 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many of you all realize that the US, who one poster stated is one of the lowest taxed nations in the G8 has the second highest corporate tax in the world. The world trend over the last few years has been to lower their rates in an attempt to lure companies into their countries. Yet the US is actually thinking of raising our tax rates? Really smart... then how many of you dreamers will be crying even louder about the number of companies moving over seas.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 17 (view)
 
A new direction in Government?
Posted: 6/18/2009 10:18:29 PM
When i said a new trend concerning health care, i meant the goal of universal health care. For the record, i never said socialism, although some have, I used progressive. I have heard many democrats use this word also. It was a political philosophy that became previlent in the late 1800's. As for the demand for a civics class, if find it interesting that some people on these posts want to kill discussion instead of make a point. The two parties are hurting this nation at least in that sense. And the proper role of government has been a discussion topic since around 400 BC with Socrates. Each era since then there has been discussion on this issue.
This nation was supposedly founded under what some call a "classical liberal" ideology, which supported a limited form of government. The second founding is what some modern political scientists call the era of Lincoln. Lincoln used the power of the presidency and the goals of the Declaration to authorize him to act several times. It brought into politics what some would call a moral level.
Now to the topic, should the government be bailing out GM? Should the government go into universal health care? Where and what should the limits be?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
A new direction in Government?
Posted: 6/15/2009 11:18:21 PM
Now that Obama is the President, and national health care is on the table for real, I was wondering just what is the real purpose of government. The founding fathers felt that government, and by that the federal government should be limited and restricted in scope and power.
With the second founding, under Lincoln, we begin to have a federal government that is involved with more aspects of peoples lives. This trend slowly continues until Wilson and finally with Roosevelt, FDR, when the scope and power of the federal government is no longer really restricted.
Now our nation has a federal government involved with auto companies, heading into envolvement with national health care and where it will stop is unknown.
So, again, as i stated, I was wondering what is the right scope of government and what should it be doing? Is there an aspect of a person's life that it shouldnt be involved with? if so what?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Nancy Pelosi slams law inforcement on ILLEGAL immigration
Posted: 3/22/2009 9:10:20 PM
To begin with we are discussing illegal immingration. Not mexicans or any other nationality. I am hispanic. My family came here legally years ago. My family was like many others who did things legally. The idea that those who do not follow the law are rewarded ahead of those who dont follow the law is not justice. it is not american. why do so many people try to make it a race issue. There are bigots on the right, but from the way i see it there are some on the left too.
I think that sending them all back is illogical, but lets face it we need to make our laws mean something and allow justice back into the situation and not just for the poor illegals, but for those who are actually trying to follow the laws.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 38 (view)
 
The New America
Posted: 3/22/2009 8:34:21 PM
i find it interesting how many people want to turn my post into a OBAMA topic. Obamas stimulas and Bushes failures.... mean while i am talking about the government in abstract... interesting.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
 
The New America
Posted: 3/9/2009 11:36:38 AM
While we are at it, we need to get rid of those quaint ideas from the past. I mean Jefferson and such had ideas of the past, but lets face it, they dont apply anymore. Everywhere we look we see that most people think the government should fix things, so its time to get rid of their silly ideas. The constitution, well congress has found enough ways to twist that and make it do what ever they want it to do. SO they need to go.
WE also need to continue this idea to change the meaning of socialism. Too many people dont like that word. So we need to change that one and make it a new word. That way people can have what they want with out this irrational view towards socialism. After all, America is already socialistic to some degree. There are enough social programs that we have no room to make cries against socialism. So we will simply have to use that old standard "progressive."
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Conservatives Use More Pornography Than Liberals ... Say WHAT?
Posted: 3/5/2009 10:28:22 PM
well of course conservatives need porn. they have "values" that say that sex is only for procreation. Liberals, as we all know, will have sex with anyone, so they dont need porn, and if they want to watch some, they just have to sleep with a conservative who is cheating on his or her spouse.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
The New America
Posted: 3/5/2009 10:20:28 PM
Ok, so we eliminate the investment security thing... thats all? Any other things we should add...
oh yeah, we need to get all those right wingers off the air. no more Rush, Hannity, Levin or Ingram.... they only tell lies anyway.
the only people that should be allowed on the radio are the unbiased people like on CNN or MSNBC,
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
The New America
Posted: 3/5/2009 9:57:56 PM
Its time for the New America. We need to get rid of all those out dated views that some of the people have and work on moving ahead.
WE need the government to provide health care for all. Medical care isnt a privilidge its a right.
We need the government to place caps on those greedy people who make more than 500,000. They need to realize that they are guilty of pure greed. Force them to make a reasonable amount and start paying their employees a larger percentage of the profits.
We need the government to provide housing for all those people who cant afford it. They shouldnt have to live in the streets. They should be taken care of, helped if they have medical problems and then given a descent job.
No one should have to be poor.
We need the government to subsidize and make sure all envestments are secure. We cant have "greedy" people out there taking all the money and running.
WE need free school of descent quality for everyone, up to and including college.
we need to have day care provided for all single parents so that they can work.
Our governmetn needs to start ensuring happiness for all,
Anything else?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 88 (view)
 
How do you really feel about this large stimulus package?
Posted: 2/11/2009 11:38:36 PM
Bi-partisan bill passes, with three votes from republicans.

"President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

Yep this is a wonderful bill. out of 789 billion in the bill, only 150 billion on infrastucture spending. One third in tax cuts. between them thats just over half. So everyone who says we need to reinvest in this nation help put people back to work, that is the point right? well thats the point of 150 billion. And the rest?
we shall see.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 55 (view)
 
How do you really feel about this large stimulus package?
Posted: 2/8/2009 7:04:27 PM
I find this stimulus package to be a joke. How often have we heard the mantra from those supporters of keynesian economics that this is the way to prosperity. Of the fable that it worked in the great depression.
No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"*
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081104085447.aspx

but then I guess we are caught by the old mantra of repeating the past.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Is there a Double Standard?
Posted: 1/30/2009 10:24:12 PM
if you thought it was bs then why did you post.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Ideas To Fix The Economy( for fun of course)
Posted: 1/29/2009 11:06:33 PM
just for fun, how about we make our government get out of all business but goverment. make the government stop wasting money. Limit the resources they can play with. Then for a big laugh we can cut all spending that isnt pre paid, ie social security back to the barest minimum til we pay off the debt. After the debt is paid, we mandate by constitutional ammendment that the government may never spend a penny more than it brings in.
Now after the debt is paid, we make all programs under go a cost benifit analysis. if there is not a definate benifit for the cost... no program.. further more all programs and all spending will be audited... if you charge the govt. 500 for a 15 dollar hammer we throw you in jail.
and last but not least, we stop spending millions/billions over seas til the economy is all better. and then it be left up to the people, if you want to support something, do so, but out of your money not the governments.
wait i know it wont work.. the repub. cant handle that one nor could the dems.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 55 (view)
 
Medical Insurance for all
Posted: 1/29/2009 10:57:03 PM
IF health care is now a right, is owning a home also a right? eating? owning a car? a particular standard of clothing? a college education? a job? would some one please tell me how a right is determined? is it based on something? or is what ever enough people say is a right a right?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Is there a Double Standard?
Posted: 1/29/2009 10:16:47 PM
Actually, I never said i was naive about this subject, i tried to keep my personal bias out if. If that makes me seem naive then i am sorry. I wanted and still want a open discussion. Since your point is the media is not biased against Obama or for him, thanks for your opinion.

I do agree that the media is reporting aspects of both sides and i do agree it depends on the station on the slant it is given. do you also feel that the people of this nation are biased?

And my point concerning the abortion funding was that people are acting like Obama did something uniquely wrong, and frankly i dont see it as unique... so to me there is a double standard. Am I wrong?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Is there a Double Standard?
Posted: 1/29/2009 7:46:55 PM
I want to begin by saying I am not out to get into any fights here and i am not trying to make people mad, i am curious. I have seen many people on here and in the media discuss the bias the media has for Obama, and seen how some people have cried that if a republican did this or that the media would be all over them. I have also seen many people on here who seem to fall into either the catagory of the media or those crying unfair.
So i am wondering do you all really think there is a double standard in the media and in peoples impressions of Obama and what he has done so far.

For example: I have heard a few people complaining that Obama overturned the ban on funding for overseas abortion, saying it was so wrong ect. ect ect. yet Clinton did the same thing. So Obama isnt really different in that respect. Yet i have also heard some people say how enlighted it was for Obama to do so.
Is there i a bias or a double standard at work?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 33 (view)
 
What do you think of the new rules Obama set out to his staff?
Posted: 1/29/2009 7:42:07 PM
i find it interesting that so many people are praising Obama for the new age he is bringing in by his rules, and dont care that he has broken them. Just like i find it funny how many people are prepared to find fault with everything Obama does just cause he does it.
Guess this nation wasnt healed with his election, we dont have a new age and it aint Koombia on my radio. Politics as usual in DC.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
would Bush and the republicans have gotten away with this???
Posted: 1/29/2009 7:14:47 PM
Over all I can not see how Obama could think that Rush would support him. Seriously, when has Rush said anything for Obama, and frankly why should he? If he thinks Rush will join in the love Obama movement then he is being silly.
But in all honesty, i think Obama was trying to get the republicans to support his bill. He felt if he compared them to Rush they might join his view. In this they were wrong. And saddly many of you who are not conservatives will sit back and compare Rush and the others to nasty things and ask how anyone could listen to them. I say this cause many of you would happily remove them from the airwaves and forbid anyone from saying things like they do.
So all Obama did was look at Rush from the view point of other liberals and try to use Rush like satan,and convince a group of people to join with him.
And frankly i dont think either Obama or any of the others out there really understand why someone would disagree with him unless they were idiots that listen to Rush.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Does government does its job?
Posted: 1/23/2009 7:01:15 AM
Anyone who thinks the government is efficient in their performance is actually deluded. How can anyone look at the US postal service and compare it to say either fed ex or UPS and say, yep the government does a better job is in my opinion deluded. Government has one main reason why they do not need to be efficient, there is no compitition. Anyone go the the DMV lately and see three people who spend their time talking and joking around and one person working?
Yes corporations may be inefficient at times and no not all government agencies are inefficent all the time, but by and large i would have to say the difference is really big between them. Further more if i go to a store and an employ fails to do their job i can complain to the management and there will be some form of corrective action taken, with the government employees i have not see the same.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Does government does its job?
Posted: 1/20/2009 10:27:37 PM
because the employer doesnt make them... in this case the people. The people allow the government to not do its job.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 1/14/2009 10:42:53 PM
ok i guess i will agree that she is a nut job.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Illinois House impeaches Gov. Rod Blagojevich
Posted: 1/9/2009 7:45:40 PM
Did any of you see or hear his press conference? Is he on the same planet as the rest of us?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 8 (view)
 
What is the job of the Government?
Posted: 1/9/2009 7:41:40 PM
Yes the constitution was written to expand the role of government, ie federal government over what was in the articles of confederation. But it was also meant to be a restriction on the power of that government. It places limits on the jobs by listing what each branch of government was to do. It did not simply create a legislature, Presidency and Judiciary, it enumerated the powers and if we include the bill of rights, which was the condition of passing it, you will see that the government was to be limited in the power that it was granted.

Unrestricted government power was something the founders were definately fearful of, they had seen that under Britian.

And if all you got out of your history classes was that the founders wrote the constitution to expand the power of the federal government than maybe you should repeat. It was to expand it to the point of need, but not to allow it to grow out of hand that the founders struggled with. It was also a point of major contention between the federalists and the anti-federalists.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
What is the job of the Government?
Posted: 1/8/2009 7:44:51 PM
"A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."
--Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802. ME 10:342

"That government is best which governs least."
-- Thomas Paine
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
- Thomas Jefferson
I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
- Thomas Jefferson
With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
- James Madison
think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
-Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
-Thomas Jefferson

The very constitution is written as a limit on the power of government, therefor, if you need more support that the founders were for a limited governement let me know.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 5 (view)
 
What is the job of the Government?
Posted: 1/7/2009 11:36:52 PM
Well i had heard the function of government was to protect you from me and me from you.
I also know that the founding fathers felt the government that was best was one that did the least.
When it comes to the constitution, well the catch is the conflict between securing the blessings of liberty and the promote the general welfare.
Many can argue that protecting the rich at the expense of the poor isnt protecting the general welfare, yet to do the opposite doesnt seem to be just either to me.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
What is the job of the Government?
Posted: 1/4/2009 10:15:10 PM
I recently read a comment in one of the posts where someone said that government was mainly to force people to do what they didnt want to do. I was tempted to ask the poster to explain, but figured it would be against the rules, so I was wondering what you all thought.
I know many of you all seem to think government should do a lot, and some think it shouldnt do anything, so tell me what you think and lets discuss this one.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 65 (view)
 
Where is our country headed now, is this really a depression
Posted: 1/4/2009 9:58:34 PM
so is it bad to say the jobs should be for Americans?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Forced Insurance
Posted: 1/4/2009 10:17:15 AM
Well it sounds like the people in mass are getting taken to the cleaners so that someone can make a buck.
I agree that it is wrong to make you pay to support something you disagree with, but that is the normal state of things in this country. WE all pay taxes that are used for things that we find objectionable. Sad but true.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 170 (view)
 
Solutions to illegal immigration?
Posted: 12/18/2008 11:40:46 PM
I dont know of any international law that would prohibit the deportation of non-citizens back to their own country. Last i checked it was still an aspect of soverignty that a nation can remove non-citizens. I could be wrong. But i dont think i am. As for deteration of our relationship with mexico, how would sending back their citizens be a justified cause for them to be upset with the US? As for the rest of the world, well they are right now having their own immigration problems.
As for amnesty, well a partial amnesty would be a viable answer providing there was some real effort made to stop the flood. I still think the best way to stop the flood is go after the employers big time. No job, no reason to stay.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 168 (view)
 
Solutions to illegal immigration?
Posted: 12/18/2008 7:46:39 PM
In the third case above may I ask why the person in question didnt take advantage of the amnesty offered in the 80's? WHy that person didnt apply for citizenship? why that person had to stay illegal for all those years?
just curious.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
The Fairness Doctrine vs.Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Posted: 11/23/2008 10:45:47 PM
The problem with the "Fairness Doctrine" is that it is being raised up as an issue only to silence the right wing talk radio. Members of congress have called for and will call for a return of this Doctrine because Sean Hannity has pissed them off or Rush or one of the others. It isnt being used so that we can hear more sides of an issue. They just want to shut these people up.
Now i can get all the pro liberal news i want from the main stream media, i can get all the right wing news i want from Fox and talk radio. I am just curious where do i get news from the middle? Oh yeah, that is why i have a brain, so i can sift throught both of these and get the reality in the middle.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Solutions to illegal immigration?
Posted: 11/23/2008 10:38:41 PM
The answer has been stated here many times, enforce the laws. The laws already provide for a fine for employers, its just not done. So Make the fines mandatory. Arizona recently passed a law requiring all employers to varify potential employees with a national data base. The results of the law being passed, even before implimentation was a drastic increase of illegals returning to mexico. So many in fact that the state in Mexico to the south of Arizona sent a deligation to the Az. Legislature to complain about the cost of all these people on the infrastructure in mexico. ( the cost to educate and medical costs.)
So make this mandatory nation wide. Increase the fines on business and dont allow the politicians to say that illegal is just a technicality.
I find the case about the person who was hear for so many years being deported kind of ironic. During the Regan admin. And amnisty was passed for all illegals in this nation, all they had to do was sign up. SO why didnt he?
Concerning those who are already hear. my solution is really simple: First they must register for a card. They will be given a provisional green card, and allowed to stay 30 days until a) their criminal record is check, b) they can prove they are gainfully employed and c) they make provisions to pay a fine for breaking the law. Anyone who doesnt sign up is a criminal and faces punishment. If they are caught breaking any law, their citizenship status should be determined and regardless if it is speading or jay walking, if they have not registered they should be deported. Any one guilty of any serious offense should pay the penulty for their crime and then be deported. *unless of course that penalty is death, then i guess they can not be deported if dead.*
And of course none of the newly registered become citizens unless they go to the back of the line and waite just like everyone else has to. For example my great grandparents.
Now why not just give everyone a blanket pass and say you are all forgiven, that would make the law baseless. When the law becomes baseless and a source for laughter then all laws are undermined to some degree, and that leads to a slower from of degeneration of society.
Finally concerning the quote from the declaration of independece. It is true that all are endowed with inalienable rights, but that doesnt mean all are endowed with inalienable privalidges. The constitution immediately sets up a restriction by citizenship for those who can serve and those who can not. TO be illegal though doesnt mean that a person should be held with out regard to legal council, subject to unreasonable search and seazeure or even aribitrary loss of life. They still have fundimental rights, just no privilidges. One of those rights they have is to live in the nation that they are a citizen of and be returned without being beaten or harmed in such ways. SO yes they have rights, and they should either follow the laws of this nation or be deported back to wear they came from.
side note, this is kind of odd, i actually agree with bluesman...
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 73 (view)
 
The truth about welfare!
Posted: 11/3/2008 9:50:45 PM
First off Fiddler would you please explain how the lifestyle we enjoy in this nation is at the expense of the third world? Second when did this come into being or has it always been the case? and finally could you tell me how you see fixing this awful situation that you describe?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 72 (view)
 
The truth about welfare!
Posted: 11/3/2008 8:08:04 PM
just some facts to consider:

federal budget, 2003

Social Security 20% NonDefense Discretionary 20%
Medicare 11 Defense 17%
Medicade 7
debt service 9
other income
tested entitlements 6
other mandatory 8

therefor total NonDiscretionary=63%
Descretionary= 37%

So what are we worring about here?
Oh yes, welfare... although i will not admit that anyone on here is an expert, i have read many experts like Hayek and Freedman who oppose welfare, both for coroporations and individuals. Complaining only about one is being hypercritical. I find both to be wrong. But if we must do one, then let it be to individuals and done in such a way to ensure that they will not be back on the system.
Presently welfare is not going to help people get an education at universities, unless they can go part time, after work. They must work 40 hours a week or have a child under two or be looking for work.
that is only going to make more minimum wage workers who will be laid off. We need to educate these people and get them into good paying jobs. Minimum wage is a wasted expense to the tax payers.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 13 (view)
 
None of the Above
Posted: 11/2/2008 11:19:01 AM
Hank the problem with your idea is that it continues the problem. By voting for the same old system at the "last minute" is that it is just the same old people. The two parties are a joke. They lie, cheat and steel to win an election. SO if i were to be as false as the two parties i would support a third party until he looks like he has no chance to win, then switch to one of them That doesnt do anything to fix the system. It is only by voting for the third parties that we can make our voices heard.
Maybe at first it will only be a small voice in the wilderness. but with time and more and more americans voting third party, them that voice becomes louder. Then we might have real change in washington, not simply slogans.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Specific plans the New Admin should adopt?
Posted: 11/2/2008 9:00:10 AM
Buses as i pointed out in my post are powered by natural gas, but semi's require a lot more power to pull the weight they carry. There was a test done and the semi's were not able to pull their wieght. The milage they got on natural gas was around 2-3 mpg. this is not a viable option.
further more, natural gas has a flamability problem. The US government wisely doesnt want semi's pulling hazordas material loaded with Natural gas.
and as the poster said, not enough of these type of stations. That is the problem with cars using it right now.. infrastructure
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Liberalism And Conservatism
Posted: 11/1/2008 11:23:08 PM
I knew i always liked you Charlemagne. Just normally disagree with you. But again the world is full of change,,... i agree with you 100% on this one
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Specific plans the New Admin should adopt?
Posted: 11/1/2008 11:20:26 PM
Itech if we keep this up the world will end or there may actually be change in washington... we agree.
But then even when i have disagreed with you on a philosophical point, i have always respected you for your opinions as being well thought out.
SO lets see what other policies we can work on?


Ok how about illegal immigration: I will go first as i figure you all can jump on me for these views. I think the next POTUS should work to enforce the border. THose that are already here in this country should be given an oppertunity to be come legalized in some way. But there needs to be a fine and they have to go to the end of the line for citizenship.
Employers should be fined big time. It should be mandated that they check records with a national database and not hire any who cant pass it. Those that do, fine them and fine them harsh.
Any illegal who fails to register and start the process of becomeing legal should be deported when caught by ANY police agency. There should not be amnisty cities.
If a person doesnt want to register, then they are not here just to get a better life.
Finally any one who breaks other laws in this nation should be punished according to our laws then deported. With a notation to not allow them back in.
comments>
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 81 (view)
 
Elizabeth Dole: Lying Trash.
Posted: 11/1/2008 11:10:07 PM
First off concerning Doles Add. I took the time and listened to the add. I find it objectionable but then it is also nothing new. The first time that this type of attack was done that i know of was in the election of 1800. The rebulicans didnt invent it, the federalists were using it against Jefferson.
Politics has always been muddy and frankly just flat out wrong. But then most politicians are supporters of the big lie.
Republicans and Democrats both use the big lie to get their fear instilled in the people they want to vote for them. In this add Dole was trying to make the extreame christians afraid of her opponent. Does this make it right? Nope not in the least.
Second point. Credible sources. Good luck. I find that many of the sources that people use are biased. From CNN to the New York times. They all have an agenda. Just some are better at hiding them then others. Lets face it, if you dont have the transcript of what the person in question actually said, then you are getting someones interpretation. Does that mean all sources are equally biased? Nope i did just say some are better at hiding their agenda then others. I have found little problems with factcheck.org so far. Would i swear that what ever they say should be treated as gospel? Nope.
Finally, for those of you who are offended by this tactic of Dole's campaign, well i agree you should be, but when you justify your offense of it by saying it is a republican or GOP way of life, you loose some credibility also. Its both parties.


Additionally, what is wrong with being afraid of something? Fear of what bush would do with another four years is why i didnt vote for him in 04. I was right to be afraid. As were many of you. Fear is sometimes justified. Some of you are afraid of what four years of McCain would be like. Some of you are afraid of Palin being POTUS. Would you say it is wrong to be afraid of this? I am afraid of either of these two ending up as president. Obama or McCain. But saddly i dont see that my fears really matter in this one.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Why Impeachment is still important
Posted: 11/1/2008 9:29:17 PM
Just out of curiosity, are not all presidents immune from prosecution for duties of office? For actions that they did while acting as POTUS? I thought the only way a president could be "charged" was to impeach them? Unless we are talking about taking GW to the world court for war crimes?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
The 2nd Amendment & Obama
Posted: 11/1/2008 9:25:40 PM
I want to state my bias first. That way all you who disagree with it can ignore my post if you wish. I believe in the right to own guns for self protection and for personal use. Protection from criminals and from a tyranical government. In my reading of the founding fathers this is what i see that they ment.
Now the idea that Obama feels that a person who uses a weapon for self-defense in their own home should be open for prosecution i find really objectionable.
If we have a right to own them is that then limited then by not having a right to use them? Does anyone know how he justified that view?
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Specific plans the New Admin should adopt?
Posted: 11/1/2008 9:13:58 PM
Now i am shocked, i agree with Itech and with you Hank. Although with you on the foriegn aid I wonder if it is actually productive.

As for energy independece. There is one major obsticle, trucks. As in semi trucks. They can not be powered well by natural gas. and electric is a joke for them. No power. We need to find an alternative engergy source that will power the semi's of this nation. I think it would be easy to use electric and natural gas for the cars of this country. Easy as in the tech is already present and works fairly well. Many of the transit systems in this country already use natural gas. or LP.
I agree we need Nucs, solar, wind, hydro, tidal power and we need to look for more.
Oil shale can help and so can drilling in the short term, but in the long term we need more options.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Liberalism And Conservatism
Posted: 11/1/2008 9:05:40 PM
I thought that this was a fantastic post. I found your definitions to generally be fair and proof that you are one of the better posters on here.
I would like to point out an addition if i may.
there is another view point, actually several. But i am thinking of what is called the Classical liberal tradition. It is not a consevative movement, although it does have some views that the conservatives also adopted. It is not what is considered liberal, although there are some simularities.

I am a classical liberal. I believe in the individual vs. the government. Government is a necessary evil. It is not the source of rights, nor can it do anything to grant a right. All it can do is not interfear.
I call a right what is each persons naturally. I do not have a right to a porche, unless i can afford it. I do not have a right to tell another what they must do. I can advise, but never order.
THe writers that supported classical liberalism were many. First of course was John Locke, but more important to many of us in the US, was Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers.
i do not believe the government has a right to supress one group for the benifit of another.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 93 (view)
 
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 8:46:26 PM
As some of you may know i am not a supporter of John McCain. I do not feel that under his administration or under Obamas either the economy will improve and we will end up in the great promised land of Utopia. That being said i have some questions for all of you::
First for those of you who support John McCain, how can you call Obama a socialist when John McCain does the same thing. One poster on her pointed out that in calling Obama a socialist someone failed to see that government buying banks and bailing out morgages was "socialistic" in nature but kind of backwards... it was steal from the poor to help the rich. John McCain has supported this kind of attitude many times in his career.
For those of you who support Obama, do you take into account two thing? First off Nancy Palosi and Harry Reid? These two people will control congress. If they, as they are predicting right now end up with a supermajority in both houses, they will be able to pass what ever legislation that they wish. Now maybe Obama will say 3% on the rich, but these two have shown they like the idea of higher taxes. So when they say more, do you think Obama will say no? Please keep in mind that Obama has voted with his party 96% of the time.
Regardless who wins, i see big trouble for this nation. I wonder what the tax rates will really be in a a few years. Will the rich be defined as anyone who makes more than 250,000 or will it drop to 120,000 or even less. Will that 3% go to 10% or more?

Many of you have said we need redistribution to level the field and eliminate the imbalence between rich and poor. I may disagree philosophically but i do understand the rational. Many of you simply say well i dont make that much so tuff for them. I asked what was fair and if I got any answers it was well 3% is ok. Its fair. So if it goes to more then will you say it isnt fair? When will all of you who feel that taxing those who make more than you be enough, when will it cross into the grounds of unfair?

And just a side note, the power you grant a government to do to another; you grant it to do to you.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
What 3 issues are most important to you
Posted: 10/29/2008 7:26:58 PM
I will agree with Itech on this one. although i want Foreign Policy to also include national security.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Specific plans the New Admin should adopt?
Posted: 10/29/2008 7:06:57 PM
I was reading in a number of posts peoples ideas on how to fix this nations problems and thought why not ask you all directly what you think this nation should do? Please be specific as possible in your ideas if you will.

For example:
US Foriegn Policy:
I think the US should begin gradually redeploying all US military personal out of ALL other countries in the world. We should remove our forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, Quait, Saudi and then begin closing all bases in all foriegn countries. DO this over the next four years so that by next election time, all US military personal will be home. This would allow for us to save millions of dollars on shipping and transportation each year.

Second all foriegn aid should be stopped. Especially to any country that is listed as terror supporting and or an enemy of the US.

Third, the US should endevor to become energy self sufficent. Using all availible technologies the us should work hard to increase our dependence only on US resources and eliminate the need for foriegn oil and energy.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 51 (view)
 
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/29/2008 6:59:13 PM
a tax cut isnt a redistribution, a tax increase and a check from the government are aspects of redistribution.
 
Show ALL Forums