Steeler

Touchy touchy. My point was in the rest of the post. Pardon me for disagreeing with you in my own scampish fashion.

__________________

leejo

Sorry for saying you're acting like a smug smartass. That's just how I roll.

leejo

Hey Kibbitzer, if the kettle doesn't like my calling it black, then the kettle had better cool it with the scampish insults or expect a little return fire. As for advice, maybe you could give the kettle some, but I can live without yours.

luna

Obama / Clinton / McCain (Since he needs a little love too!)
1) Conservative
2) Moderate
3) Liberal
4) Socialist
5) Communist

Obama- Liberal*
Clinton- Liberal*
McCain- Conservative*

*I have a difficult time sticking some generalized label on an individual, as very few people match up so easily to those labels. However, if I had to pigeon-hold these folks into one label, I'd stick with my answers above.

Should the President follow the guidelines set by our Constitution or follow the will of the people?

I am having a hard time figuring out precisely what you are asking, so I'll just go through the constitution and its main points for the sake of clarity. Yes, I believe the government should be composed of three branches who provide a balance of power. Yes, I believe in the rights of states. Yes, I believe the Constitution should be permitted to be ammended by a 2/3 majority in Congress, then by ratification by 3/4 majority of the states. And I believe our President should abide by these rules, particularly the part about balancing the power of the branches of Government so that no one power can overtake the other two. The will of the people is expressed in the Legislative Branch of the government, which I think for the most part represents the people relatively well. However, as any other branch, the legislature cannot be the only ruling branch.

In summary, I think that following the will of the people is prescribed by the Constitution- we are supposed to be a representative democratic republic after all
.
Does that answer your question, or did you mean to ask about something else?

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

Trooper

When did this thread turn into the cooking thread and what the hell does Wonkish mean?

Pittbullbloodr

Luna ,
Great post and thanks,the point was and is to see if people know what the role of the Pres.is,and how it has changed over the years.
Your right the Government is set up in 3 separate branches,so we have checks and balances from each other.(3 branches)
But what I see is how we are stretching and rewording the Constitution to fit new agendas,that are not covered and never mint to be.
example:the Government trying to cover the housing problem.
It's not the Governments role to bail out you or I from a bad choice that we have made.
Remember the Government dose not produce money,it takes it thought taxes.
By taking more to cover housing just may cause the person who could afford his payment before,now to come up short because of the new tax.
We do have outlets,help from your local Church,non profit Org. relieve groups.
But the Government was not a save all set up.
Point being we need the GOVERNMENT TO GET BACK TO BASICS and with the extra money You will save(remember you earned it) maybe you can help yourself or help your neighbor we way it use to be.
Sorry for the run on

__________________
_______________________[IMG]



--------------------------------------------------------[/IMG]

Steeler

So producing money is on fact one of the expressly defined roles of the US government. We live in a managed economy. Always have.

__________________

Pittbullbloodr

Come on you know what I mean,
Of course they MAKE THE MONEY,but the government realize on taxes to pay for all there
expenses.They do not produce a product to sell to pay for Government to run.
The Post Office which is run but Government is about the only office that dose.
Example the sell of stamps to pay there bills.

__________________
_______________________[IMG]



--------------------------------------------------------[/IMG]

Steeler

One could reasonably consider taxes to be a form of payment for services rendered.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I assume you support Ron Paul.

__________________

Elwenil

Please, please, please, proofread your posts for grammar and spelling before posting it! I get a large enough headache from this discussion without having to read something that probably should have been written in crayon. Google makes a nice toolbar with a spell checker built in that is perfect for this. Thank you.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

Pittbullbloodr

Steeler you went down this road not me.
Ron Paul ,a Libertarian, would do well on the finical side but he docent believed in protecting our borders from outside attack.(Like preventing another 911).
BUT TO GET BACK TO THE POINT From above:
Point being we need the GOVERNMENT TO GET BACK TO BASICS and to stop trying to be our parents. We need to take responsibility for our decisions and live like our fore fathers had to with the out come of our actions.

__________________
_______________________[IMG]



--------------------------------------------------------[/IMG]

Elwenil

Here's an interesting article that shows the "sensationalism" I mentioned before:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/...superdelegates

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

Pompa

rotflmao, good one.

__________________
Your mouse has moved, please restart windows for the change to take effect.

TheSkudDestroyer

He's not a real conservative! He's not going to cut taxes by 1209348123985712034752345%!

__________________
|TG-6th|Skud
BMT Graduate - 320th Training Squadron, Flight 024 - MSgt Romero - "Kids no more!"
30 weeks Keesler AFB, 1W031 - Weather

ScratchMonkey

If you vote for the lesser of two evils (or three, counting McCain), you get evil. You're still going to hell. All you're changing is the speed.

Voting for a minor party candidate that you actually believe in does a couple of things: First, it denies the winner a mandate. Bush won with 50%, so he certainly couldn't have claimed he won by consensus. Had more votes gone to minor candidates, he would only win with much less than 50%.

Second, minor candidates with significant votes are seen as swing votes, and front-runner candidates, being the unprincipled vote-chasers they are, will compromise the promises made to their guaranteed backers to woo the minor party blocks. This has already happened in close Congressional races when Libertarians threatened Republican seats by stealing votes from the Pubbie candidate. We've also seen Republicans in the Reagan Congress toss aside their gun rights backers to woo fence-sitting gun banners.

__________________