but that's my point. we scream we are a "democracy" but yet in the court of law we are not. i'm just saying that we are not a "true" democracy by my understanding of the definition of the word.  now, i'm not saying we need to do away with reassonable doubt, don't get that idea. 

of course not, I'm not taking you wrong.

You are right, we aren't a complete democracy.  We're a Democratic Republic.  I think with a lot of things over the last half century or more, our say of what goes on has been taken away little by little.  We still have a say, but not to the point that we should, because anything that 'the people' want, can be over ruled or in other words completely ignored by 'elected officials'.

Whatever, I'm starting to not care anymore.  (in the speech of a sloth) President Obama....wooo.

I'm still going to be laughing either way it goes, though.

laughter is the best medicine. but it goes best when mixed with large amounts of liqour. (or lick her) 

Quote from: jserio on October 23, 2008, 01:51:05 PM
laughter is the best medicine. but it goes best when mixed with large amounts of liqour. (or lick her) 

I'll take both 

Just another thing about Obama...

He's pro illegal alien.  He wants to give them all amnesty, and allow them to have driver's licenses, and social security benefits.

So to all you aliens that want to come to America, come on in, the future president will make you better off than even some of our vets. 

( puts on flame suit)

What is up with this? Could this possibly be true?


http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/obama_citizenship_lawsuit_154.html

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on October 24, 2008, 01:30:46 AM
( puts on flame suit)

        

after the historical mess bush and the republican have made of this country Obama can do very little and still look like a genius after 8 years of the idiot.

however, i am a little skeptical of the idea of giving the democrats free run over the entire government. 

oh dear god the republican had it for years and royally f%&ked things up...the democrats could not possibly do worse.  unless they invaded Iran, or gave almost a trillion to wall street..oh wait those are republican ideas.

Quote from: frankieG on October 24, 2008, 03:03:18 PM
the democrats could not possibly do worse. 

Hmm..

Universal Healthcare
Increased taxes on the weathly
Public Disarmament
Open Borders

Yes. It can get worse, and with Obama in office, it will.  Cuba got "change" in 1959, and look at them now.  With Barack Obama in office, we will have a very socialist-like government.

since when is universal health care bad? or increasing taxes on the rich?  public disarmament? i did not know that the public was armed.  i don't recall anything about open boarders.  besides it is bush and the republicans who are all for the illegal "migrant" workers.

It's bad Frankie because someone has to pay for it. There are too many sitting in the wagon now rather than pulling it. The mega-wealthy are NOT going to pay for it Frankie. "Wealthy" will be "re-defined". "Poor" will be re-defined. Obama can NOT MAKE the top 1 % of this country pay for his programs. It will NOT happen. What WILL happen is that he will destroy the true Middle Class as we know it.
Seriously............you really don't believe him do you? They are all lying, thieving, bastards and bitches.

Quote from: frankieG on October 24, 2008, 03:19:46 PM
since when is universal health care bad?

I don't want to pay for the health care of others, and I wouldn't want anyone to pay for mine.  People need to take responsibility for themselves to take care of themselves.  We'll have waiting lists for doctors visits, operations, surgeries, etc.  More people will leave the country for their health care. 

Quote from: frankieG on October 24, 2008, 03:19:46 PM
increasing taxes on the rich? 

What's wrong with reaping the benefits from years of schooling and hardwork?  Why should the wealthy have to "share" with everyone else?  I make $30,000 a year, so I am by no means wealthy or even upper middle class, but I still think you deserve what you work for.  Higher tax rates for the wealthy will just feed the plague that is welfare in this country.

Quote from: frankieG on October 24, 2008, 03:19:46 PM
public disarmament?

Owning a firearm is a right given to us by the 2nd Amendment.  Obama has voted to outlaw the manufacture and ownership of handguns.  Under his presidency heavy legislation against the ownership and possibly manufacture of firearms will be introduced.  Illinois is one of the only 2 states that has outlawed concealed carry for handguns.  I wish I would have written this myself:

The Gun Debate
Major L. Caudill United States Marine Corps (Retired)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat. It has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong and the many and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

---

I don't feel very strongly one way or another about the illegal immigration in this country, because my job requires the regular use of spoken english, so my job is not threatened.


So tell me Universal Health Care is good.  Or Increased taxes.  Or taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. 

^^^ Well Said.

Do you REALLY want 4 or 8 more years of the same?!!! Can you really stand behind the republican party and the present administration? Do you really think McCain is any different?!! Have you given any thought about Palin, and her most recent screw ups?

Quote from: mojonixon on October 26, 2008, 10:22:48 AM
Do you REALLY want 4 or 8 more years of the same?!!! Can you really stand behind the republican party and the present administration? Do you really think McCain is any different?!! Have you given any thought about Palin, and her most recent screw ups?

Do you really want to keep saying that over and over again until we believe it?

The whole mess with the housing crisis/bank issues was started with Carter (a democrat), was raised by Clinton (a democrat), and left for Bush to deal with it.

Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998, but no one is saying anything...oh, and it was on the same basis of WMD too.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons" - Clinton

THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION IS DEMOCRAT! Congress is a democrat congress and guess what...they have a lower approval rating than the president.  Something like 12%, cause they SUCK!!!

What is so bad about Palin?  What 'screw ups'?  You mean meeting with the enemy overseas to negotiate during war time (something the constitution only allows the president to do), or when she lied to the American public about many many things, only to be caught and try to turn it around to save face?  Oh, what about her refusal of providing the proper documentation to prove she is elegible?  Oh, we can't forget about all her friendly relationships with Extremists from around the world.

OH WAIT! THAT'S OBAMA!!!


So, back to your question.  What 'same' are you talking about?  If the change we'll get with Obama is the change you want, you need to go live with Hugo Chavez.  He's your man.