Draft the war hawks.

Damo, I think you and a lot of other people have a fundamental misunderstanding about how allegedly Libs use government "to solve problems".

Take the Clean Water Act, for example. Passed in the early 1970s. The Clean Water Act didn't "solve" any problems. It was private enterprise and the free market that cleaned up our water. All the Clean Water Act (CWA) did was set health-based standards for clean drinking water, and some general rules about discharging pollutants into our waterways. In short, the CWA codified the health-based standards that should be technologically and economically achievable, and in effect then relied on private industry to invent and implement the technoloigies that would help us achieve those goals.

It was private enterprise that cleaned up our water, based on health-based standards the goverment codified into law. That's the way all the best laws work. The government sets the bar (based on what is economically and technogically possible), and then we harness the ingenuity of private enterprise to help us meet that bar.
 
Cypress said:
Damo, I think you and a lot of other people have a fundamental misunderstanding about how allegedly Libs use government "to solve problems".

Take the Clean Water Act, for example. Passed in the early 1970s. The Clean Water Act didn't "solve" any problems. It was private enterprise and the free market that cleaned up our water. All the Clean Water Act (CWA) did was set health-based standards for clean drinking water, and some general rules about discharging pollutants into our waterways. In short, the CWA codified the health-based standards that should be technologically and economically achievable, and in effect then relied on private industry to invent and implement the technoloigies that would help us achieve those goals.

It was private enterprise that cleaned up our water, based on health-based standards the goverment codified into law. That's the way all the best laws work. The government sets the bar (based on what is economically and technogically possible), and then we harness the ingenuity of private enterprise to help us meet that bar.
Click to expand...
This would have been one on which they would align with my personal beliefs. It happens, just less often than with the Rs.

And on many fundamental issues, such as the Second Amendment they either are totally off or in disagreement in important areas with myself. Also with Roe v. Wade. While I don't personally want to see abortion banned across the nation I believe that this was a bad decision by the court and that states should have more say on the issue than they do. Hmmm... I guess I sound like Giuliani on that one.

I believe strongly in State's rights, and a less-strong central government. I believe that many Federal Programs overreach and wish them to at least cease growing by leaps and bounds, if not be removed entirely.

I want to return to a more strictly constitutionally limited government rather than rely on end-runs like the War Powers Act (Unfortunately neither of the main parties even mention this one) and funding restrictions to bring states into lines to further homogenize the States. I want local governments to run the public schools not laws at a federal level which I believe to be a reach past the 10th Amendment....

I can go on and on. But when it comes down to it, the Rs far more often align with my beliefs than the Ds do, and especially on issues that I add importance to.

What amazes me is that you say you don't think I am a 'tard, but then start to "explain" things like the CWA as if you are speaking to a tenth grader who hasn't been in a class on government.
 
'Getting back on Topic'...!

I think the 'draft' should be reinstated...draft all liberals and conservatives..heck even raise the age to sixty something..I would love to go back in and train these big mouthed wannabees...they have all the answers...but damn if they will not go to the front lines to see why war is sometimes a necessary evil...are we back on track yet???:p
 
Hummm...

I guess ya hit me below the belt...since I do have SS,Medicare and a VA disability pension(20%)...but hey I will be willing to go back...it's in the blood"First Blood"Where is Sylvester when ya need him???and by the way cit are ya not also in the over fifty class...:pke: Give up your SS and all other bennies while ya are at it...:rolleyes:
 
I will give up mine if I live long enough anyway Battle ;) So will you most likely. I am not targeting you, I am there too, could draw now ,but am waiting to get more.
 
uscitizen said:
I will give up mine if I live long enough anyway Battle ;) So will you most likely. I am not targeting you, I am there too, could draw now ,but am waiting to get more.
Click to expand...



Naw...I fought hard for my mini bennies...and ya can 'pull the gun from my cold dead fingers'(para-phrased from Heston) before ya get em' back...
 
Yeah it might be a elderly revoloution next...
I paid a lot in my SSI "contributions", And I EXPECT to get them back if I live long enough.

Never went for any militiary money was glad to be done with them.
And have no plans of dealing with them again.
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah it might be a elderly revoloution next...
I paid a lot in my SSI "contributions", And I EXPECT to get them back if I live long enough.

Never went for any militiary money was glad to be done with them.
And have no plans of dealing with them again.
Click to expand...


Okay so I am wrong for accepting disability bennies??? Damn son it hurt...:rolleyes:
 
Damocles said:
This would have been one on which they would align with my personal beliefs. It happens, just less often than with the Rs.

And on many fundamental issues, such as the Second Amendment they either are totally off or in disagreement in important areas with myself. Also with Roe v. Wade. While I don't personally want to see abortion banned across the nation I believe that this was a bad decision by the court and that states should have more say on the issue than they do. Hmmm... I guess I sound like Giuliani on that one.

I believe strongly in State's rights, and a less-strong central government. I believe that many Federal Programs overreach and wish them to at least cease growing by leaps and bounds, if not be removed entirely.

I want to return to a more strictly constitutionally limited government rather than rely on end-runs like the War Powers Act (Unfortunately neither of the main parties even mention this one) and funding restrictions to bring states into lines to further homogenize the States. I want local governments to run the public schools not laws at a federal level which I believe to be a reach past the 10th Amendment....

I can go on and on. But when it comes down to it, the Rs far more often align with my beliefs than the Ds do, and especially on issues that I add importance to.

What amazes me is that you say you don't think I am a 'tard, but then start to "explain" things like the CWA as if you are speaking to a tenth grader who hasn't been in a class on government.
Click to expand...



This is all well and good....but you were the one who stated you couldn't vote for democrats because they overwhelmingly ran to government to find "solutions".

Other than your example of some city ordinances about smoking laws, you haven't pointed to any specific examples for me to address.

If you vote for republicans largely on abortion and gun control, that's fine. Cons actually want MORE laws and government control over abortion. That's in direct conflict with your stated reasons for not voting democratic.

Gun laws are a trivial example. A few cities have restriction on handgun ownership. That's it. It's largely a local issue, in a relatively few urban areas. Guns are never going to be banned by either party. At best, there will be some extremely marginal and limited restrictions on the types of ammunition you can buy.

Illegal immigration? You support the republicans government solution, over the Democrats goverment solution. So your just idenitifying which government solution you prefer. That's in conflict with your assertion that you don't vote democratic because they are the ones seeking out government solutions.
 
Cypress said:
This is all well and good....but you were the one who stated you couldn't vote for democrats because they overwhelmingly ran to government to find "solutions".

Other than your example of some city ordinances about smoking laws, you haven't pointed to any specific examples for me to address.

If you vote for republicans largely on abortion and gun control, that's fine. Cons actually want MORE laws and government control over abortion. That's in direct conflict with your stated reasons for not voting democratic.

Gun laws are a trivial example. A few cities have restriction on handgun ownership. That's it. It's largely a local issue, in a relatively few urban areas. Guns are never going to be banned by either party. At best, there will be some extremely marginal and limited restrictions on the types of ammunition you can buy.

Illegal immigration? You support the republicans government solution, over the Democrats goverment solution. So your just idenitifying which government solution you prefer. That's in conflict with your assertion that you don't vote democratic because they are the ones seeking out government solutions.
Click to expand...
One more time...

I NEVER STATED THAT I COULDN'T VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS.

Shall I repeat it so it will stick this time?

I NEVER STATED THAT I COULDN'T VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS.

I stated that the R Party aligned with me more often than did the Ds and that is why I was a Republican in answer to Darla's remark that, "I don't know why he (speaking of me) is a republican."

Do not put words in my mouth. I attempt never to do that to another, I expect a bit of the same respect from you.

I was answering that one remark, and gave reason why I chose the party I did when I registered and why I often vote for Rs. I was never describing why I "couldn't vote democrat".

And one more time with the "Government solution" thing.

THAT WAS WHY I SAID IT WAS A VERY GENERIC DESCRIPTION AND THAT I KNEW IT DIDN'T COVER ALL OF IT.

This is the third time I've posted the statements that I capitalized on this post. And I even brought to your attention the fact that border security is one of the powers given to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Yes, I support a government solution to that issue. I expect it.
 
Darla said:
LOL This is fun.
Click to expand...
It would be more fun if he actually read my posts instead of regurgitating the same stuff. At least acknowledge the fact that he thought this was that other thread where everybody got into an orgasm of reasons why they never could vote R, instead of the thread where somebody wondered why I was a republican.
 
Damo seems like I do recall you saying you could not vote for a democrat for President ...Am I mistaken ?
 
Damocles said:
It would be more fun if he actually read my posts instead of regurgitating the same stuff. At least acknowledge the fact that he thought this was that other thread where everybody got into an orgasm of reasons why they never could vote R, instead of the thread where somebody wondered why I was a republican.
Click to expand...

Well, people get tired of the old "big government dems" line. Government has grown more under this adminstration, and I believe under Reagan as well. So he is just making that case, and he's right.

As to the thread, you know, I don't even know which thread this is, or which thread I said I would never vote for a R on. I'm never good at keeping track of that. I'm pretty certain I didn't get into an orgasm though!
 
uscitizen said:
Damo seems like I do recall you saying you could not vote for a democrat for President ...Am I mistaken ?
Click to expand...
Nope. I even pointed out that I could vote for Lieberman. This, of course, was when he had run for VP and people didn't hate him for supposedly being "R" in "D" clothing.

Although, it would behoove me to think twice about it as the people that they appoint to positions would likely be against much of what I am for.
 
Darla said:
Well, people get tired of the old "big government dems" line. Government has grown more under this adminstration, and I believe under Reagan as well. So he is just making that case, and he's right.

As to the thread, you know, I don't even know which thread this is, or which thread I said I would never vote for a R on. I'm never good at keeping track of that. I'm pretty certain I didn't get into an orgasm though!
Click to expand...
There was a huge clapterfest of posts waxing orgasmic of how great a description of why they could never vote R. (Of course I am exaggerating, but it is for literary effect)>
 
Damocles said:
Nope. I even pointed out that I could vote for Lieberman. This, of course, was when he had run for VP and people didn't hate him for supposedly being "R" in "D" clothing.

Although, it would behoove me to think twice about it as the people that they appoint to positions would likely be against much of what I am for.
Click to expand...

Umm lieberman is an I...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top