Coming-up elections?

[politicalforum]

Discussions on coming-up elections?

Anyone?

[curefiend]

The upcoming elections in two years?
Its too early to tell, but the leading representatives from both parties as of right now are uninspiring.

[Vlad]

yeah, I guess we have to wait and see

[curefiend]

Though it won't let me vote in that poll for some reason, none of the candidates on there are to my liking. Though I will definately not vote for Clinton,

if Nader runs again, he will get my vote, though its unlikely that he will.

[davideyoung]

My vote is for (R) Congressman Duncan Hunter

[curefiend]

What exactly appeals you to Duncan Hunter?

[davideyoung]

Many things. I have known him since I was a kid, and he has never wavered on his stands - something rare for a politition. he represents his district and those who voted him into office well. He also goes out of his way to help people with a good cause, even if it is not popular with the media.

[SleeplessWanderer]

i guess davideyoung makes a good point.

but i still don't know who i'd vote for

[curefiend]

Not to pry, but what good cause has he gone out of his way to help his people, regardless if its not popular with the media? (especially since the media is never really critical on most politicians, nor does the media have much of an opinion on anything other than the opinions of its advertisements)

[davideyoung]

In 1992, the Grossmont Union High School District of La Mesa, CA (in Hunter's congressional district) told the Christian Clubs that had been meeting on the campuses for years that they can no longer meet on school grounds, citing "Seperation of Church and State", even though no such law exists.

The students who led the clubs from the various schools scheduled to meet together to see what could be done. One called the congressman to ask what could be done.

The congressmen flew an ACLU lawyer out to defend the students, citing the "Equal Right Act" that he had recently pushed through congress. This act states that a school can not descriminate against a peaceful student organization based on religion, sexual preference, sex, race or political affiliation. It states that if any non-curricular student group is allowed to meet, so must religious/political/etc groups under the same rules/ In other words, to ban the Christian club from peacable meetings on campus, they would have to ban the Spirit Club, the Key Club, the Math Club and so on - any that were not part of the specific school curriculum.

The press did not like Hunter helping the students out much, but the ACLU lawyer flew out, showed up at the student meeting, and the press covered the meeting where for the first time in the more than 100 years of the district history, students representing every school met together.

The following day, the district superintendant issued a statement saying it was all a big misunderstanding, and he did not know where all the principles got the idea to ban the student clubs.

In under two weeks, the issue was resolved, thanks to the thoughtful work of Congressman Duncan Hunter.

Many would not have lifted a finger or gotten involved, since Christianity is not popular among the media right now.

[curefiend]

One, maybe you should read the first ammendment in the Bill of Rights, and you will notice that such a law does exist seperating church and state.
Two, Christianity is not popular amongst the media? Stop with the false claims of persecution, you know what religion isnt popular with the media right now? Islam. Christians like to make mountains out of molehills. By some people wanting secular representation in public, Christians in a very egocentric manner assume that this is an attack on Christianity.
3) I personally couldn't trust a president who feels that prayer on school campus is a dire issue. Those are petty cultural issues that time and the people usually work out within themselves, the true issues lies in economics.

[curefiend]

I started a thread for the discussion on seperation of Church and State, go there to further the church and state discussion.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=553#post553

[davideyoung]

First ammendment. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Hmmm. It is clear as day - Congress can not make laws about religion or restricting the free exercise of religion.

Nothing about "Seperation of Church and State" in there.

[curefiend]

No seperation of church and state in "Congress shall Make NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION..."? Then what the hell does that mean?

[curefiend]

anywhom go to that thread I created I linked it above to discuss about the seperation between church and state.

[davideyoung]

Simple. The word "respecting" in today's English is "Redgarding". It is the first clause of the "Bill of Rights" meaning the rights of the people. It says the government can not make laws about religion.

[curefiend]

Your playing a game of semantics, nevertheless we can play this game in the appropriate thread which I started!!!!

[Seraph]

I don't get it.

[davideyoung]

You asked a question regarding Duncan Hunter in this thread. I answered. You challenged my answer, and I rebutted. I don't have one conversation in two threads.

[moodswings]

what's all this fuss about? it's clear to me that playing a game of sematics isn't a good one

[curefiend]

I understand the Duncan Hunter conversation, but the conversation evolved into a discussion regarding Church and State did it not? So thus I created an appropriate thread regarding that subject matter.

[nelly]

what is that conversation could you tell me what that's about?

[samsara15]

If Bush keeps trying to keep this war going, he's going to ensure another Democratic victory.

[curefiend]

If Bush keeps trying to keep this war going, he's going to ensure another Democratic victory.

Unfortunatley, I see that to be the situation as well. They messed up the last election real bad. A Democratic victory in the 08 election would be incredibly upsetting....

[USMC the Almighty]

Unfortunatley, I see that to be the situation as well. They messed up the last election real bad. A Democratic victory in the 08 election would be incredibly upsetting....

Well who do you want to win? It's either going to be the Democrats or Republicans.

I'm sorry, but this country has never and will never even sniff Socialism. You can take that bull**** and go to France.

[curefiend]

Well who do you want to win? It's either going to be the Democrats or Republicans.

I'm sorry, but this country has never and will never even sniff Socialism. You can take that bull**** and go to France.

Vermont recently elected the first socialist Senator in American history. And I hate France, why the hell would I go there, I'd rather bring that bull**** here.

[InterestedParty]

Vermont recently elected the first socialist Senator in American history. And I hate France, why the hell would I go there, I'd rather bring that bull**** here.

It isn't going to happen curefiend. And thank goodness.

[USMC the Almighty]

Vermont recently elected the first socialist Senator in American history. And I hate France, why the hell would I go there, I'd rather bring that bull**** here.

I pressume your talking about Bernie Sanders -- he calls himself a "democratic socialist" so essentially he's in line with the entire Democratic party. He wants welfare, Social Security, income redistribution ...pretty much all out dependence on the gov't, like all Democrats.

However, the Socialism I was talking about is the old Marxist "workers control means of production".

And anyway, we're talking about Vermont. They don't even deserve to be a state. I hope Canada annexes them.

And you're nuts if you think the majority of Americans will ever accept complete government control -- not only does it go against every principle of the Founding Fathers, but it is simply an irrational and impossible system that cannot work.

[curefiend]

You are right, Bernie Sanders is more of a social democrat than any real form of socialist, but its the fact that someone sporting the title can get elected. Which goes to show someone can get elected based off of policies and beliefs rather than party affiliation was my general point.

Why doesn't Vermont deserve to be a state? I wish the entire south weren't part of the US, they should secede now, I promise no civil war this time.

If you think what I am preaching is complete "government control" my friend you are thinking of Stalinism and that is most definately not what I support.

[USMC the Almighty]

You are right, Bernie Sanders is more of a social democrat than any real form of socialist, but its the fact that someone sporting the title can get elected. Which goes to show someone can get elected based off of policies and beliefs rather than party affiliation was my general point.

Fair enough.

Why doesn't Vermont deserve to be a state? I wish the entire south weren't part of the US, they should secede now, I promise no civil war this time.

Because they're so out there. I was making a joke. Hey, if the South seceded it would have secure borders with a fence and armed guards, low taxes, strong military/defense, minimal gov't interference, strict constructionism, and state sanctioned church revivals with fried chicken. I wouldn't mind.

If you think what I am preaching is complete "government control" my friend you are thinking of Stalinism and that is most definately not what I support.

I'm sorry but doesn't Communism, by definition, entail total gov't control where all income is evenly redistributed.

[TVoffBrainOn]

Hey, if the South seceded it would have secure borders with a fence and armed guards, low taxes, strong military/defense, minimal gov't interference, strict constructionism, and state sanctioned church revivals with fried chicken. I wouldn't mind.
.

You forgot Slavery and white male supremacy

[USMC the Almighty]

You forgot Slavery

How clever. Applying 21st century standards to an 18th/19th century institution. Slavery actually started in the North. Furtermore, the Northern port cities controlled shipping -- and by what vehicles were slaves brought here again?

Now, don't misinterpret this as blaming the North for the Civil War nor am I apologizing for slavery, but had the Northern ports agreed to lower the protective tariffs, the South would have eventually phased out slavery, so in many ways, you can blame the North for slavery just as much as the South. The North favored protective tariffs for the manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain’s Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs, that is when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

Only six percent of Southerners owned slaves, and among this six percent were 13,000 free blacks who owned slaves themselves.

and white male supremacy.

Have you ever lived in the South or are you just spewing what you've been told by your lefty sources what it's like there.

Yeah, of course you have some vocal racists, but the North isn't exempt from racism just because people display it in other avenues. I love how people are so quick to proclaim every racist action in the South is symbolic of the overall attitude while every one in the North is an anamoly from the otherwise "accepting" and "tolerant" culture.

In the famous "Red Summer" of 1919 -- none of the race riots took place in states that were part of the CSA. Racism is just as prevelant in the North as it is in the South -- maybe if you weren't so narrow-minded you would be able to discern the racist institutions in the North.

[TVoffBrainOn]

How clever. Applying 21st century standards to an 18th/19th century institution.



Have you ever lived in the South or are you just spewing what you've been told by your lefty sources what it's like there.
.

I live in the South. I don't have "Lefty Sources". I didn't know looking at Slavery in a negative light was a "21st century standard"

[USMC the Almighty]

I live in the South. I don't have "Lefty Sources". I didn't know looking at Slavery in a negative light was a "21st century standard"

I look at slavery in a negative light too, but I just think it's unfair to judge 18th century men with 21st century standards.

It's easy to sit here in 2007 and say that we would've opposed slavery from the beginning in the early 1600s, but the fact of the matter is before 1831 no one opposed slavery so we don't really know how we would've looked at slavery back then. In conclusion, I stand by my "21st century" remarks.