 |
Duration: 10:58 minutes Upload Time: 2007-12-13 05:59:29 User: jandrewclark :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Tags:
2008 Debates presidential Race Ron Paul America history Philosophy JFK Martin Luther King Civil War Rights movement
Description: My historical reasons for why I back up a guy who says things I don't believe 100% |
|
Comments | |
| jandrewclark ::: Favorites 2007-12-20 17:34:08 It's certainly a case to be made. It's about priorities. I confess there are days that living in Spain sounds attractive, but my blood is too American for that. But, some people love other systems and god bless them. I have Canadian cousins who could never do the American life.. __________________________________________________ | |
| rowsdowersavesus ::: Favorites 2007-12-20 16:41:57 Coincidentally, many countries are better to live in than yours, too. Coincidentally. __________________________________________________ | |
| jandrewclark ::: Favorites 2007-12-19 20:08:37 The law is that you can't hunt them in the state of Oklahoma....where there are no whales. The only branch that should have any kind of say so in making sure the states preserve freedom should be the supreme court. I agree, that why we have constitutional amendments. Because changes in federal laws should take near universal approval. __________________________________________________ | |
| jandrewclark ::: Favorites 2007-12-19 20:05:37 Sure. If you don't like it move to vegas where they allow prostitution and you do a full swing. It's competition between states and competition is healthy in a market economy. Other nations have far less of a market economy then we do. __________________________________________________ | |
| rowsdowersavesus ::: Favorites 2007-12-19 15:46:13 There's a reason that no other country grants as much autonomy to their states as you guys want to. If the will of the people was to discriminate based on sexual preference and religion...you'd be OK with that? __________________________________________________ | |
| rowsdowersavesus ::: Favorites 2007-12-19 15:44:28 Oklahoma's whale-hunting laws can be enforced. Oklahomans can take trips to the sea to hunt whales, no? But what if what the feds tell you to do is to not oppress people, thus preserving freedom? A dogmatic adherence to your constitution is dangerous, given that it's meant to change from time to time. __________________________________________________ | |
| jandrewclark ::: Favorites 2007-12-18 23:19:20 Don't disagree, but Oklahoma outlawed whale hunting...we like to make unenforceable laws. As to the feds, all we want them to do is to keep us free, not tell us what to do. They're there to provide for the national defense and ensure domestic tranquility....lines straight from the constitution. They are here to keep us free and to let us decide how we will live. __________________________________________________ | |
| jandrewclark ::: Favorites 2007-12-18 23:17:28 Sure, he's ok with any kind of laws, as long as they're the will of the people. You and I will disagree on this, but I don't want the feds deciding what virtues we live. That's not what the constitution demands and it's not what we need. virtues belong to the state, security to the feds. __________________________________________________ | |
| rowsdowersavesus ::: Favorites 2007-12-18 20:16:32 If they can't enforce a law, then they can't make it. "The role of the national government is foreign relations and security alone." That attitude will keep your country as it is-a militaristic empire that has no sense of decency, and does not care for its citizens. __________________________________________________ | |
| rowsdowersavesus ::: Favorites 2007-12-18 20:14:43 I kind of WANT your federal government to have control. I'd rather have one united country that upholds the virtues of your constitution than a bunch of small theocratic fiefdoms. Sec. 2 is (8) is utter bullshit (lie) (9) is also a lie, and all of Section 3 is abhorrent. Sec. 4 undoes some of the damage there, but Sc. 3 is the part that shows he's OK with theocratic and hateful laws. __________________________________________________ | |
| jandrewclark ::: Favorites 2007-12-17 15:30:09 States can outlaw them, they just can't enforce it.... and it's only between adults obviously. But yes, the concept here is that this ruling is wrong. States ought to be able to make their own decisions. The role of the national government is foreign relations and security alone. __________________________________________________ | |
| jandrewclark ::: Favorites 2007-12-17 15:28:22 What part of the act do you think is off? I have read the entire thing word by word now and I'm not seeing it. Could you point out the lines you think gives the federal government some kind of control? __________________________________________________ | |
| jandrewclark ::: Favorites 2007-12-15 17:37:05 eh, it's not about views, it's about expression for me. __________________________________________________ | |
| rowsdowersavesus ::: Favorites 2007-12-15 17:17:36 I actually was mistaken there. However, I'm right on the We The People Act, and frankly, it shows that he's a very, very bad choice to lead. If that act goes through, you'll find much of the U.S.A. becoming like a christian Iran, and none of us really wants that. And competition in the currency market would not be good by any means. __________________________________________________ | |
| rowsdowersavesus ::: Favorites 2007-12-15 17:15:10 Um...your college system kinda sucks, outside of some ivy league schools. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment