|
Post by dpgunit on Dec 16, 2006 22:58:12 GMT -8
(as requested by dx)
what do you think about the american system of government?
not our current politicians, but the system as a whole. do you think it works well?
|
|
|
Post by LostPeon™ on Dec 17, 2006 1:40:09 GMT -8
AMERICA IS TEH R0XZ0RZ
AMERICA, f**k YEAH COMING AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHER f**kING DAY, YEAH!!!
|
|
|
Post by dpgunit on Dec 17, 2006 1:50:50 GMT -8
AMERICA IS TEH R0XZ0RZ AMERICA, f**k YEAH COMING AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHER f**kING DAY, YEAH!!! TERRORIST YOUR GAME IS THROUGH, CUZ NOW YOU HAVE TO ANSWER TO.. AMERICA, F*CK YEAH! SO LICK MY BUTT AND SUCK ON MY BALLS
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Dec 17, 2006 9:36:01 GMT -8
that was a little nasty, dp, for my comfort!
Yah, the government needs a new republican, GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!
you know, its about time that women were in the presidency.
I've had it with women's rights being so hated on, you know back in the 1920s. I think thats why the flappers came about, because they wanted to rise up against the political powers of the age. They did theatre, anything a man could see himself as doing. I hated this government for what it did to our women. Now, its time for a new republican to take the stand.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Dec 17, 2006 12:03:00 GMT -8
prone, have you even seen team america?
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 17, 2006 12:09:22 GMT -8
I'm sorry ptc, but you get a smite for that post. Hillary is Democratic, just so you know.
While women's rights are most definitely not completely achieved, they're far from being "hated on". Women have the same opportunites, for the most part, that men do. Really, only the extremely physical jobs are discriminating now adays, as long as the jobs that require cooperation between the US and a country that doesn't accept women.
I don't think Hillary would be a good choice. Not because she's a DEMOCRAT, which prone doesn't seem to know, but because with the problems in Iraq and our current standing in the Middle East, our entire situation would explode if she were our president (not to mention that I really don't think she's a strong leader). Let's improve our image in the world by insulting other countries, eh?
That being said, I'd look forward to Barack Obama facing John McCain. Obama has a powerful link with the minorities in America, being of middle eastern descent, but also can relate to the majority through his love of America, and also the fact that several generations of his family were born here. It would be even better if Hillary were his Vice President, because then we could still have a female leader but she wouldn't have to be our representative to countries whose minds are less open than ours.
McCain would be my choice in the election however, since he was a war hero and has been a senator for so long. He's also closer to the center, not being a radical republican, but more of a moderate. I think McCain teamed up with Rudy Giuliani would be an amazing combination.
As for what I think is wrong with our government, I really don't think there is much. However, I do oppose Welfare and Social Security, though not completely. I think they should be available, but privatized. It's not fair for the government to have to pay for someone just because they got pregnant 5 times... here's a solution, USE A FREAKING CONDOM!!! It costs you a couple bucks to save the government a few thousand. As for Social Security, too much money is being given away. For example, my father is getting 20 thousand a year. That multiplied by the number of senior citizens in the USA points to the single largest drain on the Nation's wealth.
Other than that, I love america.
USA! USA! USA!
|
|
|
Post by dpgunit on Dec 17, 2006 12:17:21 GMT -8
that was a little nasty, dp, for my comfort! Yah, the government needs a new republican, GO HILLARY!!!!!!!! you know, its about time that women were in the presidency. I've had it with women's rights being so hated on, you know back in the 1920s. I think thats why the flappers came about, because they wanted to rise up against the political powers of the age. They did theatre, anything a man could see himself as doing. I hated this government for what it did to our women. Now, its time for a new republican to take the stand. what are you talking about? 1. hillary is a democrat. 2. this is not a campaigning thread. 3. this is the same reason gay marriage wouldn't work out. they'd all get married just because they could, but most of them would divorce within a week. same with electing hillary just because she's a woman. 4. this is off topic. this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. 5. you were one of the reasons this thread was opened.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Dec 17, 2006 12:23:39 GMT -8
I don't know if you knew this or not, dp, but gay marriage has been legal here for a while, as well as in Norway I believe it is. I was not aware there was a huge epidemic of gays marrying and then divorcing soon after....I was actually under the impression that gay marriages when compared to the 'traditional' marriage last much much longer
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 17, 2006 12:35:38 GMT -8
Gay marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. Besides, I agree that Gays shouldn't be married, since marriage is a church thing and the church doesn't recognize Gays.
However, there should be something, such as "union", where instead of being married, they are two people who are "in union". I see no reason why they can't have their own type of bond.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Dec 17, 2006 13:00:54 GMT -8
Alright I'll join in the fun. Edit: Wow I'm still in the process of writing this and there are already more posts, have to keep on refreshing just to see what I have to address next. As stated by every other person, Hilary Clinton is a Democrat. However, she has acted similar to Joe Lieberman in past, Liberman of course a Republican in Democrat/Independent clothing. She's a vocal opponent of violence in video games(a well known republican talking point) and there were other topics of republicans that she supported, I just can't remember them off the top of my head. She might make a decent president, everyone in the universe should know by now she can't possibly do worse than the current head of state. Obama seems like a good choice. He's quite charismatic. As for McCain, I've lost all faith in him. In 2000 he was the candidate I had hoped would win the republican nomination and then the election. Back then John McCain actually had integrity. Even when Bush won McCain stood his ground and at least attempted to sway Bush on matters that they disagreed with. McCain talked about the threat of extremist christian dogma being taught at Bob Jones' University. Then a few years later McCain goes to the University to give the commencement address. He was temporarily adamant that the USA never condone the use of torture and was one of only 3 republicans to stand in the way of George W. Bush's torture legislation. But then McCain waffled and basically allowed everything that Bush wanted in the bill to remain. Guliani on the republican side would be a good choice. He doesn't seem to be the ultra right-wing type of guy that so many republicans have become lately. As for what I think is wrong with our government, I really don't think there is much. However, I do oppose Welfare and Social Security, though not completely. I think they should be available, but privatized. It's not fair for the government to have to pay for someone just because they got pregnant 5 times... here's a solution, USE A FREAKING CONDOM!!! It costs you a couple bucks to save the government a few thousand. As for Social Security, too much money is being given away. For example, my father is getting 20 thousand a year. That multiplied by the number of senior citizens in the USA points to the single largest drain on the Nation's wealth. I found it funny a republican advised using a condom. You are aware of George W. Bush's strict abstinence only education program right? Where schools are only allowed to preach abstinence. Safe sex is not taught(or at least not encouraged to be taught). Plus do you really think someone has the government's best interest in mind before they have sex. That made my Lawl. "Hey honey, I really want you tonight, but I would feel like I'm cheating on my government." And the single largest drain on the USA's wealth is not Social Security. It is not what caused the USA to owe over 8 TRILLION dollars. Improper money management, hundreds of billions on the failing Iraq war(including overpaying contractors in Iraq to do things that soldiers used to do on their own). If even a portion of the money used in Iraq were used in Social Security and Welfare those programs would be funded for a century at least. Gay marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. Besides, I agree that Gays shouldn't be married, since marriage is a church thing and the church doesn't recognize Gays. However, there should be something, such as "union", where instead of being married, they are two people who are "in union". I see no reason why they can't have their own type of bond. Here in Canada it started out as a provincial issue and then eventually became Federal. I'd say it is more of a federal issue than state. FYI: Heterosexuals have been able to get married OUTSIDE of a church for a very long time. You have heard of City Hall right? Justice of the Peace? I myself no longer see any reason why loving couples that are gay shouldn't be allowed to get married. And one argument against gay marriage is that it would cause reverse discrimination against the church, which is BS, at least here in Canada. Churches that don't want to marry gays in Canada, don't have to. The churches are protected by their own rights. To me the question is, what will really change in the USA if gays were legally allowed to get married in any state? What are you scared of? Alright I'll stop here before another 3 posts come zooming in.
|
|
|
Post by dpgunit on Dec 17, 2006 14:30:48 GMT -8
ok while your posts have been insightful, PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC. this has nothing to do with the american system of government.
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 17, 2006 14:39:51 GMT -8
Also a well known mother talking point.
Yes I am aware, but we have to be realistic. People will have sex outside of wedlock and to just mess around, teenagers included. The only responsible thing we can do is to not condone unsafe sex. That's what I feel we're doing right now by giving welfare to people with an excess number of children: Telling them it's okay if you get pregnant without having money to support the kid. It's not so much that they should think about the government, but it should be so that they think, "well if I get pregnant, I'm screwed." That'll be an incentive to be safe about it.
Also on a personal note, you don't have to agree with George Bush to be republican.
First off, I'd like to say that I never said anything about the National Debt, I spoke of the National Wealth AKA the economy.
In 2003, the government paid $471 billion in Social Security benefits. The government is collecting 12.4% of every paycheck in America for Social Security alone, 6.2% from you, 6.2% from your employer. I'd call that a huge hinderance.
Let's see, the Iraq war costs roughly..$40 billion per year? I'd say Social Security payments, combined with so many baby boomers being of age within the next 5 years, is indeed the largest drain on our economy.
Those judges and ministers have gone through courses and are ordained by the church to be able to marry people. Marriage in itself is a HOLY union. If the church is going to freak out because gays are being "married," why not just do the same thing and call it something else?
Except it violates separation of church and state. I personally don't think it should be an issue at all, and that the church should reserve the right to deny them.
I'm not scared of anything, it just violates tradition. I'm not religious at all, but I have to respect tradition.
and yes it is on topic DP, we're discussing whether these are truly issues in our government.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Dec 17, 2006 15:07:42 GMT -8
Probably a lot of americans feel like they've been neglected over laws passed from the house and senate.
Gay couples want to get married, but the majority of them in palces that ban gay marriage.
Where did this come from? The bible, principally, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. This country was founded on the basis of religion.
Why must people be having issues like this? Why don't the move into some other country so that they can have their rights fulfilled.
Abortion: Now why does this even have to be an issue. Just make it totally illegal, because its killing the kid either way. It doesn't matter, "Oh, the fetus becomes a human being at conception." isn't really an argument against it, because it has very weak sides to it.
I don't know. Thats my little bit. Let's keep this on-topic though.
|
|
|
Post by dpgunit on Dec 17, 2006 15:17:27 GMT -8
and yes it is on topic DP, we're discussing whether these are truly issues in our government. no it's not on topic, the thread is about the whole principle of our federal republic..
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Dec 17, 2006 15:18:03 GMT -8
does a rose called by any other name smell any less sweet?
You can't just call it something else, but keep it the same. People will get angry and ask, if it's the same thing, why call it by a different name? But if you change what it is, so that it is not a marriage but something else, then the people will complain about inequality and discrimination.
|
|