Bush does it again....

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Lohman446
Frankly, we're as likely to get that as I am a professional paintball contract adn two playboy centerfolds to share my bed.

Originally posted by Vash02
Haha, lohman, oddly enough communism was supposed to provide exactly that....

Sounds like a plan. Where do I sign up? Do I get to specify which playmates?

(yes I knowingly mininterpreted your post. have a sense of humor... )

[Kai]

Originally posted by Rooster
The libertarians have some valid ideas. Unfortunately they fall short in two critcal places. First, given enough lee-way people become anarcists. They fall victim to mob rule. The libertarians do not recognize this trait, and do not understand why the government must take an authoritative stance on issues like drug control, abortion, and gay marriage.

Yeah! Allowing gay marriage brings us one step closer to anarchism!

I believe it!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Rooster
The libertarians have some valid ideas. Unfortunately they fall short in two critcal places. First, given enough lee-way people become anarcists. They fall victim to mob rule. The libertarians do not recognize this trait, and do not understand why the government must take an authoritative stance on issues like drug control, abortion, and gay marriage.

I hadn't noticed this before. You wish for government to stay out of all issues... EXCEPT to enforce your will over other people. How does it effect you if two men/two women marry. It doesn't. But you can't stand the idea of people doing something other than what you this is 'morally just'.

It makes me just sick. I rarely find anyone who believes the EXACT OPPOSITE to me in everything...but you are certainly close.....

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

It makes me just sick. I rarely find anyone who believes the EXACT OPPOSITE to me in everything...but you are certainly close.....

Hey!

*me feels left out*

[Bluestrike_2]

Irony at it's finest.

You do realize that the site is MISLEADER.org?

Misleader.... as in a misleading site.

BTW, isn't it obvious that it's Anti-Bush? so why would you pay attention to such a biased website.
========================
I swear, people who attack others in such a manner are a waste of air. People like Kerry should learn what ethics are. But then they would'nt be politicians, would they? Like Kerry always attacking Bush by name and everything. Now Bush has to start doing the same. A never ending and useless cycle. I don't care for any of this campaigning bull****, all started by Kerry. Take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Vash02]

good thought blue strike, but most of the information on there is how bush MISLED the american people..example, medicare cost more than bush led us to believe, thus Misleader.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Vash02
good thought blue strike, but most of the information on there is how bush MISLED the american people..example, medicare cost more than bush led us to believe, thus Misleader.

It still boggles the mind that a liberal is complaining about spending too much on Medicare Rx Benefits.

[Kai]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


It still boggles the mind that a liberal is complaining about spending too much on Medicare Rx Benefits.

When it's a medicare plan they didn't approve... Don't be surprised.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Kai


When it's a medicare plan they didn't approve... Don't be surprised.

Oh I get it. If they didn't devise the new boodoogle benefit, it must not be good?

Thanks for clearing that up Kai!

[Rooster]

"You wish for government to stay out of all issues... EXCEPT to enforce your will over other people. How does it effect you if two men/two women marry. It doesn't. But you can't stand the idea of people doing something other than what you this is 'morally just'."

My stance on gay marriage and drug control has nothing to do with morallity. If I had my way, every drug user on this planet could shoot up whenever they like. I would just make sure all their product was nicely tainted. Problem solved. The role of government isn't to spoon-feed the population. Its to keep people from getting out of line. What line? The one drawn by the government, which is why its important that it reflects the majority will.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Rooster
My stance on gay marriage and drug control has nothing to do with morallity. If I had my way, every drug user on this planet could shoot up whenever they like. I would just make sure all their product was nicely tainted. Problem solved. The role of government isn't to spoon-feed the population. Its to keep people from getting out of line. What line? The one drawn by the government, which is why its important that it reflects the majority will.

Have you ever heard of tyranny of the majority? Our founding fathers had! That is the whole reason for the Bill of Rights...to try and ensure that the majority would not enforce take away the rights of the minority.

These rights, of course, are always evolving with the times.

Yes the simple solutions are always the best. Why not view everything as survival of the fittest? We have weak willed drug users. Why not taint the drug and let them kill themselves? That will solve the problem. How about terrorism? Easy, kill all the people in the middle east and the terrorism will go away. That is why we have nuclear bombs. We gave them several chances, but they just refused to ever see 'the light'. The 'innocent ones' never acting in their own best interest and restrained the 'bad ones'. They deserve death...

But the problem is, of course, that we kill our own humanity when we use or even suggest these solutions. We're nothing but unfeeling machines who look for the easy way out...

[-Carnifex-]

No, the Bill of Rights was put in to sway the Anti-Federalists away from the Articles of Confederacy and to the Constitution. In sum, it was meant to check the power of the Federal Gov't and make sure the states still had some power.

[bokraham]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Oh I get it. If they didn't devise the new boodoogle benefit, it must not be good?

Thanks for clearing that up Kai!

well no. Say I was going to get a spyder from a loan you give me, it works well enough, and gets the job done. But instead I get an intimidator, which, hey!, is better. But now I don't have enough money for paintballs, but I buy some anyways. To pay you back I give you a statement saying that when I have kids I'll take the money out of their college fund.

I hope that that was a good analogy.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
No, the Bill of Rights was put in to sway the Anti-Federalists away from the Articles of Confederacy and to the Constitution. In sum, it was meant to check the power of the Federal Gov't and make sure the states still had some power.

Yes...exactly what makes the darn thing so good. It was created through strife, wrangling, and compromises. The end was a great document that would keep the minority from trying to escape the majority because their rights were being violated.

Also don't consider all of the protections on rights to be purely self motivated. It is a popular high school 'shock' scheme to show the founding fathers as nothing more than opportunistic politicians who stumbled upon this great working system by accident. Men like John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were quite idealistic and forward thinking. Thomas Jefferson was the same (if a hypocrite because of slavery).

They had heated politics and political infighting (the same as today). Heck Adams didn't think too highly of Franklin when they were diplomats in Europe. He considered Franklin lazy (nevermind the fact that Franklin was in his eighties (I think) and performing diplomatic duties when most of us are in a darn nursing home....)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Have you ever heard of tyranny of the majority? Our founding fathers had! That is the whole reason for the Bill of Rights...to try and ensure that the majority would not enforce take away the rights of the minority.

Take away what rights? The right to gay marriage has never existed.

The minority is trying to force their will upon the majority. I am pretty sure the Bill of Rights was a defense, not a weapon.