13
13
0
Which political party do you chose to side with? comments not necessary but if you would like to share some please do not hold back.
Also, if you do not like what someone said, so what, they are entitled to their opinion just as you are, no arguing please, just opinions.
If your not sure, please use this quiz for help.
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
Choices listed are the parties recognized by most states.
Also, if you do not like what someone said, so what, they are entitled to their opinion just as you are, no arguing please, just opinions.
If your not sure, please use this quiz for help.
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
Choices listed are the parties recognized by most states.
Politics
Fun
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 92
13
13
0
I am a strict constitutionalist; libertarian by all of the internet fealty tests. The 9th and 10th Amendments were created to give the people the power. The enumerated powers in the US Constitution are supposed to limit the scope of the federal government.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
"Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Thomas Jefferson 3rd President of the United States First Inaugural Address Given at the Capitol Building, Washington, DC Wednesday, March 4, 1801
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
"Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Thomas Jefferson 3rd President of the United States First Inaugural Address Given at the Capitol Building, Washington, DC Wednesday, March 4, 1801
(13)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
MAJ Keith Young if we all listened to the founders, Washington in his farewell speech particularly, party wouldn't be an issue. Most national polls show that there is a predominance of conservative people in the US.
We saw during the last 2 elections that more of those voters chose not to vote because they are sick of the 2-party paradigm that leaves us voting for the lessor of 2 evils. Don't get me wrong, I'll vote against any politician that espouses socialism or practices political expedience. But when I see the establishment RINO politicians pushing left-of-center politicians on the base, I will vote against them in the primary.
Unfortunately, the R majority were scared into believing that only McCain could win against Hillary which is why the establishment backed him as the front runner.
If the voters who typically vote R would not be scared into voting for the RINOs during the primary, we could come out with another Reagan-esque candidate.
We saw during the last 2 elections that more of those voters chose not to vote because they are sick of the 2-party paradigm that leaves us voting for the lessor of 2 evils. Don't get me wrong, I'll vote against any politician that espouses socialism or practices political expedience. But when I see the establishment RINO politicians pushing left-of-center politicians on the base, I will vote against them in the primary.
Unfortunately, the R majority were scared into believing that only McCain could win against Hillary which is why the establishment backed him as the front runner.
If the voters who typically vote R would not be scared into voting for the RINOs during the primary, we could come out with another Reagan-esque candidate.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Dallas D.
MAJ Keith Young - I have a simple answer for your problem - If you keep voting for what you don't want then you should never expect to get what you want.
Voting Against the other party will never get you what you want - This is why I am a proud Libertarian.
CPL Kirk Sain - You hit the nail on the head and we know there are many more of us out here than either the R's or the D's would like you to believe.
Voting Against the other party will never get you what you want - This is why I am a proud Libertarian.
CPL Kirk Sain - You hit the nail on the head and we know there are many more of us out here than either the R's or the D's would like you to believe.
(2)
(0)
10
10
0
So I just went through the survey, and those are a bunch of loaded questions. Half my answers would need to be qualified.
- Should the federal government allow the death penalty? Yes, but ONLY if we are sure that prosecutors are not ignoring evidence.
- Should the government raise the federal minimum wage? Only if it takes into account the fact that "living wage" varies from city to city. Minimum wage in New York should be different than minimum wage in no-where Alabama.
- Should the federal government subsidize U.S. farmers? For what? Corn, no. Beef, no.
- Do you support increased gun control? I believe in open carry in all states, not so much when it comes to 40+ rnd magazines for an M4.
- Should federal government limit funds to public schools that do not meet performance standards? I don't believe standardized testing works.
- Do you support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? I thinks it's a poorly written law, but what are the alternatives?
- Would you favor removing the state income tax and replacing it with a higher sales tax? I prefer a VAT tax.
On a lot of these I'd actually come down republican if only given 2 options. But I don't believe in the idea that things are black/white. There are details that need to be addressed.
- Should the federal government allow the death penalty? Yes, but ONLY if we are sure that prosecutors are not ignoring evidence.
- Should the government raise the federal minimum wage? Only if it takes into account the fact that "living wage" varies from city to city. Minimum wage in New York should be different than minimum wage in no-where Alabama.
- Should the federal government subsidize U.S. farmers? For what? Corn, no. Beef, no.
- Do you support increased gun control? I believe in open carry in all states, not so much when it comes to 40+ rnd magazines for an M4.
- Should federal government limit funds to public schools that do not meet performance standards? I don't believe standardized testing works.
- Do you support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? I thinks it's a poorly written law, but what are the alternatives?
- Would you favor removing the state income tax and replacing it with a higher sales tax? I prefer a VAT tax.
On a lot of these I'd actually come down republican if only given 2 options. But I don't believe in the idea that things are black/white. There are details that need to be addressed.
(10)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see), 1LT Shawn McCarthy first of all, if the scope of the US Government fell within the limits of the US Constitution, they wouldn't need to collect as much in taxes. Secondly, the Revenue Act of 1862 (updated in 1864) set up the first progressive income tax, at 3% for those making $600 to $10k and 5% for those that made over $10k. The Act, also set up the excise taxes for goods and services traded and those are the only taxes collected. That was it, there was no other taxes. The govt did sell some land, but revenue since 1900 has been taxes.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
I'm not opposed to paying taxes, but the govt needs to lose the unfunded, unconstitutional (Ponzi scheme) programs that are driving this country further in debt. That being said, reading the planks of the communist manifesto, I see that the second plank is "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Where do you stand Keynes or Hayek? The US Constitution as written or the Communist Manifesto?
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
I'm not opposed to paying taxes, but the govt needs to lose the unfunded, unconstitutional (Ponzi scheme) programs that are driving this country further in debt. That being said, reading the planks of the communist manifesto, I see that the second plank is "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Where do you stand Keynes or Hayek? The US Constitution as written or the Communist Manifesto?
US Government Past Revenue History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentrevenue.com briefing
Analysis and charts of US government revenue trends in the 20th century, with charts and links to the numbers. Data from federal budget and US Census Bureau
(0)
(0)
1LT Shawn McCarthy
I agree with the premise of your point, Cpl (Join to see) , and like I said in my post, the government needs to focus on doing what it must more efficiently, and stop doing what is beyond its charter.
(1)
(0)
1LT Shawn McCarthy
MAJ (Join to see)
A mag ban would be completely unenforceable. There are millions of cheap high cap mags out there. You can't track them or collect them. Limiting their sale our outlawing their possession would ensure that they ONLY came out at mass shootings by people who are about to kill and thus don't give half a shit about an add-on offense.
Most shooters are stopped during weapon jams which are MORE likely with surplus high cap mags and take longer to clear than a normal mag swap. Many mass shooters carried a crapload of mags. A mag change can be executed in a couple of seconds with only a little practice. The mag would be swapped before a victim could identify that the shooter was empty, forget about closing the distance and taking him down. Also, most mass shooters carry side-arms.
People DO hunt with 5.56 and 7.62. Varmint, coyote, deer where it's legal. But that is irrelevant, since no one has ever been able to find the 'hunting caveat' in the second amendment.
Also, both of those rifle rounds (and others) ARE used for home defense. Advanced technology has allowed for the creation of specialized rounds that fragment quite well, with some testing suggesting that a specialized 5.56 actually has LESS of a chance of penetrating drywall with lethal force remaining than a hollow-point .40 or .45.
Not to mention, any arbitrary banning of anything simply because you (or someone else) doesn't see a "use" for it is completely unconstitutional.
A mag ban would be completely unenforceable. There are millions of cheap high cap mags out there. You can't track them or collect them. Limiting their sale our outlawing their possession would ensure that they ONLY came out at mass shootings by people who are about to kill and thus don't give half a shit about an add-on offense.
Most shooters are stopped during weapon jams which are MORE likely with surplus high cap mags and take longer to clear than a normal mag swap. Many mass shooters carried a crapload of mags. A mag change can be executed in a couple of seconds with only a little practice. The mag would be swapped before a victim could identify that the shooter was empty, forget about closing the distance and taking him down. Also, most mass shooters carry side-arms.
People DO hunt with 5.56 and 7.62. Varmint, coyote, deer where it's legal. But that is irrelevant, since no one has ever been able to find the 'hunting caveat' in the second amendment.
Also, both of those rifle rounds (and others) ARE used for home defense. Advanced technology has allowed for the creation of specialized rounds that fragment quite well, with some testing suggesting that a specialized 5.56 actually has LESS of a chance of penetrating drywall with lethal force remaining than a hollow-point .40 or .45.
Not to mention, any arbitrary banning of anything simply because you (or someone else) doesn't see a "use" for it is completely unconstitutional.
(3)
(0)
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
NONE of the above. Just the BROOM PARTY. SWEEP them all out of town and start over.
(10)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google