By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
akuma587 on 23 October 2008
Edit Thread
Jackson50 said:
TheRealMafoo said:I agree with you. You are about to vote out the only major party that believes in what this country stands for. In order to fix this problem, you are going to issue in a new era of big government, and reduction of out liberties.Your leader talks about taking an axe to something that needs a scalpel. Your party is doing the same thing with respect to our freedoms. Thank you for fixing a little problem, by creating a huge one.


Yes, the only party that believes in what this country stands for. They are the party that advocated and overwhelmingly supported the suspending of the writ of habeas corpus in the MCA Act of 2006. This is the party that wishes to deny two consenting adults the right to marry; yes, the Democrats do not support it as vociferously as I wish they would, but they at least support civil unions. The Republicans are also the party that seeks to balance the budget and curtail spending ( http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Revenue_v_Spending.png ). I could list a myriad of examples that refute this silly notion that the Republicans are the only party that believes in what this country stands for, but I think most reasonable people can already see how silly it is.

No party completely represents what this country stands for, and to claim that one or the other party does is ludicrous.  Jackson is absolutely right that all you have to do is look at the evidence of what the party does.

I see parts of the Constitution that say we can't torture people with cruel and unusual methods, but I see no part of the Constitution that says that the federal government can't grow larger.  In fact, the Constitution's purpose was to make the federal government STRONGER since the Articles of Confederation were such a horrible failure.

I am not saying that the Constitution advocates big government, but the Constitution allows us to make the government as big as we want it to be.  There is nothing unconstitutional about that.  This doesn't mean that the government SHOULD become as big as we want it to be, but it also means that you are simply fabricating an argument that the government growing larger is against what the Constitution represents.  A country can stand for whatever the hell it wants to stand for, and what a country stands for changes over time, and should change over time.

But there are certain things etched into our Constitution that we can't and shouldn't change, like the Bill of Rights.  AND THAT INCLUDES TORTURING PEOPLE IN CRUEL AND UNUSUAL WAYS.  Show me where it says in the Constitution that the federal government can only become so large before it is unconstitutional?

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson