Principled Stance?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You just hate him because he's not white.

Mostly because he's a fascist. I'd rather Palin be president than Jindal; that's how much I despise the man.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

How's about many Americans don't want cake, even salad or a breadstick from the government state or federal? How's about we want to care for ourselves, leaving the government to figure out how to war and build interstate highways off of reasonable taxes?

You nit wit. Those are services and they have to be paid for too. You're making a good example for my case. Everyone is for reducing government spending until it comes to cutting the services they value.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

How is stimulus having your cake and eating it too? It's easy to understand the consequences of the stimulus, and it's easy to understand how far, far greater the consequences of no stimulus would be. It would leave future generations FURTHER in debt because it would destroy the economy to such an extent that tax revenues would fall for quite a time, and as such, it would result in much greater total debt in the future.

Because it's a short term fix and not a long term solution. It will temporarily get us out of the hole were in but it won't keep us out. My point is that this is not sustainable. Even if this stimulus works we still need to make major reforms. We cannot continue to live beyond our means.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There's also no such thing as common sense.

Thats true. The phrase "common sense" is an oxymoron as there is nothing common about sense.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hate to break it to ya, but our Founders were all about States' rights and keeping the Federal government small. Try reading the 10th Amendment sometime.



You just hate him because he's not white.

That's an ideological remark and over plays the 10th ammendment. The old States right argument is a tired old horse that was put out to pasture with the Civil War. Usually when I hear someone making a "States Rights" argument it is used to rationalize denying others their rights.

Our Founders were mainly for Federalism (more correctly that argument won the day) and expansionism too. The size, power and authority of this nation all grew in proportion to our geographical size, population and prosperity.

That should remain. I for one value many government services and do not want to see them go. The question is, how to responsibly pay for those services, with in our means, and how do we make the hard choices as to what we really need and what we can't afford.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hate to break it to ya, but our Founders were all about States' rights and keeping the Federal government small. Try reading the 10th Amendment sometime.



You just hate him because he's not white.

I have to admit I have a hair up my ass about Jindahl too. As a man educated in the life sciences at one of our finest schools he has grossly betrayed that vocation. I would have a very, very hard time voting for Jindahl.

If he does run for President I'm going to laugh my ass off when some one starts a whisper campaign about Jindahl being a Hindu. That would be just soooo ironic! LOL

 

[Minister of Truth]

I have to admit I have a hair up my ass about Jindahl too. As a man educated in the life sciences at one of our finest schools he has grossly betrayed that vocation. I would have a very, very hard time voting for Jindahl.

If he does run for President I'm going to laugh my ass off when some one starts a whisper campaign about Jindahl being a Hindu. That would be just soooo ironic! LOL

He would just show up drunk to a press conference and convince everyone that he really is Catholic.

 

[Annie]

You nit wit. Those are services and they have to be paid for too. You're making a good example for my case. Everyone is for reducing government spending until it comes to cutting the services they value.

Nit wit? Sounds like something my dad would have called you. Whatever.

 

[Annie]

That's an ideological remark and over plays the 10th ammendment. The old States right argument is a tired old horse that was put out to pasture with the Civil War. Usually when I hear someone making a "States Rights" argument it is used to rationalize denying others their rights.

Our Founders were mainly for Federalism (more correctly that argument won the day) and expansionism too. The size, power and authority of this nation all grew in proportion to our geographical size, population and prosperity.

That should remain. I for one value many government services and do not want to see them go. The question is, how to responsibly pay for those services, with in our means, and how do we make the hard choices as to what we really need and what we can't afford.

I for one am for a strong central government, limited in its powers to what were intended by the Federalists: war, commerce, foreign affairs, interstate matters. I'm for the states having control over: intrastate commerce, marriage, health, education, local issues.

The closer the government to the people, the better.

 

[Minister of Truth]

That's an ideological remark and over plays the 10th ammendment. The old States right argument is a tired old horse that was put out to pasture with the Civil War. Usually when I hear someone making a "States Rights" argument it is used to rationalize denying others their rights.

Our Founders were mainly for Federalism (more correctly that argument won the day) and expansionism too. The size, power and authority of this nation all grew in proportion to our geographical size, population and prosperity.

That should remain. I for one value many government services and do not want to see them go. The question is, how to responsibly pay for those services, with in our means, and how do we make the hard choices as to what we really need and what we can't afford.

And to think, John Adams believed the English Constitution had failed because it was unwritten, and could therefore be interpreted out of meaning and existence. So much for having a written Constitution - I guess we didn't deserve one, after all.