Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 17:45:17 GMT -5
I missed the pseudo-debate  Way too much to read to catch up  To sum up my stance and mostly respond to Odin, my viewpoint is the absolute accession that there is abuse, corruption, and misuse of all governmental systems. That is why the systems we have in place do not work the way they should and people are seeking alternative solutions that would previously have been considered extreme or unheard of. Unfortunately, the freedoms that make America successful in some areas also offer the same freedom to damage it from the inside. |
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Battle on Jun 2, 2016 18:00:33 GMT -5
No one wants to ban firearms. They want to make sure that they are sold in a safe a reasonable manner. And make sure that they're not selling to people who won't respect guns as much as they deserve to be respected. Ah, subjects of Law and Politics, some of my favorite topics… So here we go. Gemini said that “No one wants to ban firearms. They want to make sure that they are sold in safe a[n] reasonable manner. And make sure that they’re not selling to people who won’t respect guns as much as they deserve to be respected.” Gemini, I wish I could agree with you here, but I can’t. Legislative “acts” in both the Federal and State governments have moved to ban firearms. Far too many States and Commonwealths have passed laws limited or restricting particular firearms, or the carrying of firearms. Just recently in the House of Representatives, Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R.4269, otherwise known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015. It has yet to pass, but it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. Then there’s the Gun Control Act of 1968, and so forth. I understand the desire to make sure they are sold in a safe and reasonable manner, but this is not within the powers of the State, nor is this within the powers of the Federal government. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The very wording of the Amendment makes any Gun Control act illegal, and therefore null and void. The first law violating the Second Amendment was an ordinance in the Commonwealth of Kentucky prohibited the carrying of concealed arms. In Bliss v Commonwealth (KY, 1822), the high court of Kentucky ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and that the amendment is to be taken whole, and that any law violating the Constitution was void. However, in the case of Barron v Baltimore (1833), the United States Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshal (a man I regard as one of the biggest traitors in our history), declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States in complete violation of the 10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the Constitution. This caused the Supreme Court to not hear a case in the matter until 2010, the States making the ruling for their own particular States. In the case of District of Columbia v Heller (2008), a case argued successfully by Ted Cruz amongst others, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applied to the rights of the individual, and not restricted only to the service of the militia. This case shattered the longest running argument of the Anti-Second Amendment crowd used since Aymette v State (TN, 1840), which claimed that the Second Amendment only applied to the Militia. As successful as Heller was for the Second Amendment, it still did not apply to the State as the District of Columbia is a Federal District and not a State. Barron removed our Rights from the State, but not from the District. In the case of McDonald v Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the State via the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment, and the individual right, applies to all 50 States even by the Federal government’s corrupted view of the Constitution. Thus, as the final words of the Second Amendment states; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I too spoke in gross generalities. However I understand it that people are trying to ban assault rifles. Not hand guns or even shot guns. With the idea being, who needs an assault rifle to hunt or to protect yourself. An assault rifle is made to kill a lotnofnpeoe very fast. I'm not the most well versed in legislation, and I'm sure that it goes much more in depth than how I'm explaining it. I do however agree with the banning of assault rifles to anyone not in the military. And I do believe that everyone has the right to have any guns deemed acceptable by common law. |
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Battle on Jun 2, 2016 18:03:28 GMT -5
we've thrown this out there in the past
Why do people like trump.
Not to be insulting. I just personally don't understand it and if he's running for president I want to know all the facts. I want to know which person will be the least bad for America for the next 4 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 18:18:45 GMT -5
Ah, subjects of Law and Politics, some of my favorite topics… So here we go. Gemini said that “No one wants to ban firearms. They want to make sure that they are sold in safe a[n] reasonable manner. And make sure that they’re not selling to people who won’t respect guns as much as they deserve to be respected.” Gemini, I wish I could agree with you here, but I can’t. Legislative “acts” in both the Federal and State governments have moved to ban firearms. Far too many States and Commonwealths have passed laws limited or restricting particular firearms, or the carrying of firearms. Just recently in the House of Representatives, Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R.4269, otherwise known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015. It has yet to pass, but it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. Then there’s the Gun Control Act of 1968, and so forth. I understand the desire to make sure they are sold in a safe and reasonable manner, but this is not within the powers of the State, nor is this within the powers of the Federal government. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The very wording of the Amendment makes any Gun Control act illegal, and therefore null and void. The first law violating the Second Amendment was an ordinance in the Commonwealth of Kentucky prohibited the carrying of concealed arms. In Bliss v Commonwealth (KY, 1822), the high court of Kentucky ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and that the amendment is to be taken whole, and that any law violating the Constitution was void. However, in the case of Barron v Baltimore (1833), the United States Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshal (a man I regard as one of the biggest traitors in our history), declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States in complete violation of the 10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the Constitution. This caused the Supreme Court to not hear a case in the matter until 2010, the States making the ruling for their own particular States. In the case of District of Columbia v Heller (2008), a case argued successfully by Ted Cruz amongst others, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applied to the rights of the individual, and not restricted only to the service of the militia. This case shattered the longest running argument of the Anti-Second Amendment crowd used since Aymette v State (TN, 1840), which claimed that the Second Amendment only applied to the Militia. As successful as Heller was for the Second Amendment, it still did not apply to the State as the District of Columbia is a Federal District and not a State. Barron removed our Rights from the State, but not from the District. In the case of McDonald v Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the State via the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment, and the individual right, applies to all 50 States even by the Federal government’s corrupted view of the Constitution. Thus, as the final words of the Second Amendment states; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I too spoke in gross generalities. However I understand it that people are trying to ban assault rifles. Not hand guns or even shot guns. With the idea being, who needs an assault rifle to hunt or to protect yourself. An assault rifle is made to kill a lotnofnpeoe very fast. I'm not the most well versed in legislation, and I'm sure that it goes much more in depth than how I'm explaining it. I do however agree with the banning of assault rifles to anyone not in the military. And I do believe that everyone has the right to have any guns deemed acceptable by common law. “Assault Rifles” are the primary target right now, however handguns and shotguns have been targeted in certain States. New York is famous for its targeting of magazines with a capacity of ten rounds or more, which actually prohibits a large number of handguns. The Congress of the United States has tried to introduce legislation that would give the entire country the same anti-Second Amendment “laws” as New York. You are right that “assault rifles” were not designed for hunting. However, it is designed for protection, and many are used for hunting as well. That being said, that doesn’t matter. The first half of the Second Amendment is also pretty clear, “for the security of a free State.” The right to keep and bear arms is not strictly a measure to allow hunting or shooting sports. It is for the common defense. The militia is for the common defense, and the people are the militia. I am a member of the militia, as is Dag, as is Seth, as are you. Article I, Section 8 does not permit Congress to form and maintain an army, as a standing army is the greatest threat to liberty to exist. We are the protection from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Amendment is not strictly for hunting or sporting needs, but also for the defense of the entire country, and its people. Everyone has the right to whatever arms they wish. It is not within the powers of the Federal, State, County, or Municipal Governments to deem any arms as acceptable. It is not within their powers to license, prohibit, or restrict arms in any way, shape, or form. The Second Amendment is absolute. So what about the safety of the people? What can we do to lower accidents, and crime? We cannot restrict firearms, but what we can do is train. The first half of the amendment states “a well regulated militia”, this establishes that the Federal government can supply, arm, and train the militia. The Constitution does allow the government to train the militia, the people, and so that can be established. If we train people, then we can lower the risks of accidents, as well as crime. Will it solve all crime? No, nothing can, but it can limit it, as well as give the people a better chance at stopping crime. |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 18:24:25 GMT -5
we've thrown this out there in the past Why do people like trump. Not to be insulting. I just personally don't understand it and if he's running for president I want to know all the facts. I want to know which person will be the least bad for America for the next 4 years. I have no idea why people like Trump. I can't stand him, and I cannot support him. I am a Jeffersonian, a Constitutionalist. I cannot in good conscious support any active candidate running for office. I supported Ted Cruz, and in all honesty I may write him in for the general election. All candidates running for office have pledged to violate the Constitution, which is why I cannot support them. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul were the only ones pledging to defend the Constitution. I do not find Rand Paul to be the best choice, as he seems more to the left than I would like. No one outside certain Founding Fathers have done more than Ted Cruz when it comes to our liberty. I do not see him as another Reagan, I see him as almost another Madison or Jefferson. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 18:28:57 GMT -5
we've thrown this out there in the past Why do people like trump. Not to be insulting. I just personally don't understand it and if he's running for president I want to know all the facts. I want to know which person will be the least bad for America for the next 4 years. It's about putting America first. Somehow, in some inexplicably bizarre and impossible way, this has become a negative concept to what seems to be a majority of American youth. "America First" is the major driving force to Trump's campaign. Here are the big points of his platform: 1. Stop Illegal Immigration: The wall is not necessary, but it is a symbol that the intention is to actually start giving a crap about thousands of people who do cannot easily be integrated into society because of culture and language barriers from redirecting resources which ought to go to the poor people ALREADY in this country. 2. Rethink America's position as the guardian of the free world: No other country in the world has all the freedoms we have. Restrictions or outright bans on firearms, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and so on are things that don't get much publicity in American press but are very prevalent throughout NATO countries and other allies of the USA. Regardless, America spends millions stationing troops through the world to protect them and deter possible enemies. These countries are choosing to rely upon American deterrence instead of increasing the sizes of their own armies to carry their weight, and not only does this allow them more money to invest in their economies, it makes America spend more per GDP on its military, something which a number of leftists are quick to point out as a negative thing about America. Take the Baltic states for example, where not one of the three have their own air force, although the responsibility of providing air force deterrent is shared between a couple NATO countries, not just the US, but this is the kind of thing I am discussing. One thing I absolutely concede is the fact that much of the reason we have this worldwide military presence in such a strong concentration is some level of fear mongering and the intention of furthering the weapons industry. Whether people like it or not, Russia is not the threat it used to be, China has us under its thumb without the need to install a puppet government in DC, and we do not need as much as we do. However, the arms industry, also whether people like it or not, is an important piece of the American economy, providing jobs and business. Trump's intentions here are to reassess the situation and get the countries we are protecting at great expense to help cover costs as they rightfully should. Think about what would happen if Canada, for example, lost its big brother America, and had to defend its vast, uninhabited lands, full of natural resources, with that tiny, tiny army it has? 3. Focus on American industry and economy: Fix the bad trade deals we have now. That's the key. What I find interesting is how Democrats parade Republicans around as the party that sends jobs overseas because they only care about money and have cheap labor available there, while it's people like Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA and Obama who signed the TPP or whatever it's called now. That cannot be explained away or justified; it just can't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 18:35:25 GMT -5
On Firearms: There are always going to be people simply unfit to own a firearm. Personally I do not think they should be allowed to own it. However, they are such a small minority that, if enough trained, knowledgeable, and courageous citizens owned a gun, they would not be able to cause the considerable damage we see today. How small is the percentage of the US of mentally deficient people vs. normal people? Therefore, as a precaution, I think the absolute most severe cases should be forbidden, but it is not necessary in the big picture because should a psychopath attempt something, the people around him should be able to take care of it. I agree with the concept of training a militia entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 18:36:23 GMT -5
we've thrown this out there in the past Why do people like trump. Not to be insulting. I just personally don't understand it and if he's running for president I want to know all the facts. I want to know which person will be the least bad for America for the next 4 years. It's about putting America first. Somehow, in some inexplicably bizarre and impossible way, this has become a negative concept to what seems to be a majority of American youth. "America First" is the major driving force to Trump's campaign. Here are the big points of his platform: 1. Stop Illegal Immigration: The wall is not necessary, but it is a symbol that the intention is to actually start giving a crap about thousands of people who do cannot easily be integrated into society because of culture and language barriers from redirecting resources which ought to go to the poor people ALREADY in this country. 2. Rethink America's position as the guardian of the free world: No other country in the world has all the freedoms we have. Restrictions or outright bans on firearms, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and so on are things that don't get much publicity in American press but are very prevalent throughout NATO countries and other allies of the USA. Regardless, America spends millions stationing troops through the world to protect them and deter possible enemies. These countries are choosing to rely upon American deterrence instead of increasing the sizes of their own armies to carry their weight, and not only does this allow them more money to invest in their economies, it makes America spend more per GDP on its military, something which a number of leftists are quick to point out as a negative thing about America. Take the Baltic states for example, where not one of the three have their own air force, although the responsibility of providing air force deterrent is shared between a couple NATO countries, not just the US, but this is the kind of thing I am discussing. One thing I absolutely concede is the fact that much of the reason we have this worldwide military presence in such a strong concentration is some level of fear mongering and the intention of furthering the weapons industry. Whether people like it or not, Russia is not the threat it used to be, China has us under its thumb without the need to install a puppet government in DC, and we do not need as much as we do. However, the arms industry, also whether people like it or not, is an important piece of the American economy, providing jobs and business. Trump's intentions here are to reassess the situation and get the countries we are protecting at great expense to help cover costs as they rightfully should. Think about what would happen if Canada, for example, lost its big brother America, and had to defend its vast, uninhabited lands, full of natural resources, with that tiny, tiny army it has? 3. Focus on American industry and economy: Fix the bad trade deals we have now. That's the key. What I find interesting is how Democrats parade Republicans around as the party that sends jobs overseas because they only care about money and have cheap labor available there, while it's people like Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA and Obama who signed the TPP or whatever it's called now. That cannot be explained away or justified; it just can't. My issue with Trump, is that while all of that sounds great, I know he doesn't believe in it. He wants to end illegal immigration, then why did he hire illegal immigrants? He claims to be a big supporter of the Second Amendment, then why did he call to ban firearms? He wants to rethink America's role as the "police" of the world, but he wants to negotiate peace treaties with Countries that are not the United States. He wants to bring business back to America, then why did he move his business elsewhere? Donald J. Trump is a liberal parading around as a Republican, and people who focus only on the "R" next to his name are buying it up. I looked into him; he's not what he says he is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 18:50:18 GMT -5
I'm hoping that the truth is there, I guess. I don't see enough evidence from the situation to believe this is all a work. Why would Clinton and everyone else oppose him so much? And anyway, in my eyes Cruz started saying the same things Trump was saying, although I'm sure this was an attempt at getting votes. On top of that, look at the competition. I'm afraid the only reasonable course of action is putting faith into what may be considered the least of three evils to some. Clinton is corruption and selfishness personified, and Bernie, while he has good intentions, has absolutely no understanding of economics whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 18:57:37 GMT -5
I'm hoping that the truth is there, I guess. I don't see enough evidence from the situation to believe this is all a work. Why would Clinton and everyone else oppose him so much? And anyway, in my eyes Cruz started saying the same things Trump was saying, although I'm sure this was an attempt at getting votes. On top of that, look at the competition. I'm afraid the only reasonable course of action is putting faith into what may be considered the least of three evils to some. Clinton is corruption and selfishness personified, and Bernie, while he has good intentions, has absolutely no understanding of economics whatsoever. I can understand hoping that the truth is there. I just don't see it. Ted Cruz was saying everything we were wanting long before Trump (even back so far as his first run for the Senate), Trump just started saying the same things but louder an with less thought behind it. The difference between the two, is that Ted Cruz believes in what he says. Evidence has shown that at the very least Trump is indecisive, and at the most Trump is knowingly lying to the public. We have a question of which evil to choose from, and which one is the least evil. My solution is to do away with the top two choices, and find another alternative. I vote upon principle, and principle alone. I view a vote for the lesser of two evils as still a vote for evil. I cannot abide. I will vote for Ted Cruz, but if I couldn't, I may just vote for Queen Elizabeth II. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Twilight on Jun 2, 2016 19:08:56 GMT -5
Hahaha legal where I'm at Not according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. (Supremacy Clause) Legal according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.(Powers of Congress) Legal according to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (State's Rights Amendment). More to come in a moment. According to the Constitution, the States have more power than the federal government. (I realize it doesn't seem that way today.) But in all reality, a state deciding to legalize marijuana cannot be superceeded by federal law. Also, the constitution states that any law which hinders or violates the constitution, or directly contradicts our guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is null and void and should be looked upon as treason. The use of marijuana does not affect any other party but the user so therefore to have a law against it's use or possession carrying a lengthy prison term is in direct violation of our rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 19:20:02 GMT -5
Not according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. (Supremacy Clause) Legal according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.(Powers of Congress) Legal according to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (State's Rights Amendment). More to come in a moment. According to the Constitution, the States have more power than the federal government. (I realize it doesn't seem that way today.) But in all reality, a state deciding to legalize marijuana cannot be superceeded by federal law. Also, the constitution states that any law which hinders or violates the constitution, or directly contradicts our guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is null and void and should be looked upon as treason. The use of marijuana does not affect any other party but the user so therefore to have a law against it's use or possession carrying a lengthy prison term is in direct violation of our rights. The issue is that the Constitution does not exist anymore. The Federalists have taken away our rights, and only make us believe that we have them. The Federal Reserve controls the money, and the Federal government bribes the States in order to force them to comply to their will. Furthermore, the standing army is strategically placed through-out the country, and various government agencies (sorry Neforian) are also strategically placed to enforce the will of the Federal Government. We haven't been ruled by Law for a long, long time. The way it is supposed to work is; Since regulating narcotics is not listed within the powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, nor is it mentioned anywhere within the Constitution, then the States reserved that power via the 10th Amendment. Congress is not allowed to make a law on the matter, therefore all Federal law regarding narcotics is unconstitutional and void. State law, and only State law applies in this case. If a State has a law regarding narcotics, then that is the right of the State. If a State has chosen to permit narcotics, then that too is the right of the State. Such is not the way anymore. The Federal government makes whatever law they want and if the State doesn't follow it, then they could lose their bribe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 20:31:55 GMT -5
Not according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. (Supremacy Clause) Legal according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.(Powers of Congress) Legal according to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (State's Rights Amendment). More to come in a moment. According to the Constitution, the States have more power than the federal government. (I realize it doesn't seem that way today.) But in all reality, a state deciding to legalize marijuana cannot be superceeded by federal law. Also, the constitution states that any law which hinders or violates the constitution, or directly contradicts our guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is null and void and should be looked upon as treason. The use of marijuana does not affect any other party but the user so therefore to have a law against it's use or possession carrying a lengthy prison term is in direct violation of our rights. To say that weed only affects the user is downright untrue. Think of the second hand smoke, the deaths it causes to get it into this country, the money we have to spend trying to quell the threat, and the utterly dangerous things people do while high. People love to flip out on me and tell me how stupid and wrong I am, like when I said "It's only a matter of time until people drive while high." Even my friends flipped out on me. Well guess what? www.livescience.com/54693-high-drivers-double-after-marijuana-legalization.html |
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Twilight on Jun 2, 2016 20:51:48 GMT -5
To say that weed only affects the user is downright untrue. Think of the second hand smoke, the deaths it causes to get it into this country, the money we have to spend trying to quell the threat, and the utterly dangerous things people do while high. People love to flip out on me and tell me how stupid and wrong I am, like when I said "It's only a matter of time until people drive while high." Even my friends flipped out on me. Well guess what? www.livescience.com/54693-high-drivers-double-after-marijuana-legalization.htmlThis is different to drunk driving ... how exactly? They tried prohibition of alcohol ... didn't work. As far as the deaths caused for it to get into the country, that has everything to do with it being illegal. Where it is legal, that problem doesn't exist because you don't have the worst group of people in control of the substance. Did you also know that the homicide rate tripled and then tripled again during prohibition? And it dropped right back to where it was before after prohibition stopped. Weed is not the problem, just like alcohol wasn't the problem. The problem lies with people who don't use in moderation, and people who think they are more suited to decide what we do with our lives than we are. Stupid laws and the stupid and FAILED war on drugs is the cause of all of the deaths and violence. Not weed. |
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Battle on Jun 2, 2016 21:22:35 GMT -5
we've thrown this out there in the past Why do people like trump. Not to be insulting. I just personally don't understand it and if he's running for president I want to know all the facts. I want to know which person will be the least bad for America for the next 4 years. It's about putting America first. Somehow, in some inexplicably bizarre and impossible way, this has become a negative concept to what seems to be a majority of American youth. "America First" is the major driving force to Trump's campaign. Here are the big points of his platform:
America first has a negative connotation in that the last time it was used as a slogan was Charles Lindbergh during WWII when he was spouting pro nazi propaganda. The fact that trump never forcefully refused the leader of the KkKs endorsement and the fact that he's using a slogan that is widely known as a pro nazi in America slogan make him seem either racist or ignorant. Either one isn't too good 1. Stop Illegal Immigration: The wall is not necessary, but it is a symbol that the intention is to actually start giving a crap about thousands of people who do cannot easily be integrated into society because of culture and language barriers from redirecting resources which ought to go to the poor people ALREADY in this country. my grandfather came over here on a shippin g boat from Sicily. He claimed to be a worker and when they docked in New York he got off and never went back. My family was literally built off of illegal immigration so I can't morally stand against it. Does t need to be regulated? Yes. But I can't blame people for trying to leave the hell that they were born into to try and give their families a better life. 2. Rethink America's position as the guardian of the free world: No other country in the world has all the freedoms we have. Restrictions or outright bans on firearms, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and so on are things that don't get much publicity in American press but are very prevalent throughout NATO countries and other allies of the USA. Regardless, America spends millions stationing troops through the world to protect them and deter possible enemies. These countries are choosing to rely upon American deterrence instead of increasing the sizes of their own armies to carry their weight, and not only does this allow them more money to invest in their economies, it makes America spend more per GDP on its military, something which a number of leftists are quick to point out as a negative thing about America. Take the Baltic states for example, where not one of the three have their own air force, although the responsibility of providing air force deterrent is shared between a couple NATO countries, not just the US, but this is the kind of thing I am discussing. One thing I absolutely concede is the fact that much of the reason we have this worldwide military presence in such a strong concentration is some level of fear mongering and the intention of furthering the weapons industry. Whether people like it or not, Russia is not the threat it used to be, China has us under its thumb without the need to install a puppet government in DC, and we do not need as much as we do. However, the arms industry, also whether people like it or not, is an important piece of the American economy, providing jobs and business. Trump's intentions here are to reassess the situation and get the countries we are protecting at great expense to help cover costs as they rightfully should. Think about what would happen if Canada, for example, lost its big brother America, and had to defend its vast, uninhabited lands, full of natural resources, with that tiny, tiny army it has? 3. Focus on American industry and economy: Fix the bad trade deals we have now. That's the key. What I find interesting is how Democrats parade Republicans around as the party that sends jobs overseas because they only care about money and have cheap labor available there, while it's people like Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA and Obama who signed the TPP or whatever it's called now. That cannot be explained away or justified; it just can't
I agree with not babysitting the rest of the world. I agree with not spending so much money on the military. I like the idea. But what is the plan. If there's one fault I can firmly stand behind regarding trump is his lack of plan. He has amazing vision but no plans.
As for the treaty. We have to get what we deserve. We have to make sure that other countries are paying their fair share. We have to fix it but to get rid of it all together is not the best move IMO. Anything that unites half the world with common goals and purposes can't be a bad thing. .Thanks for answering in such an eloquent way. Last we discussed this it was hard to get an answer from you. Just like with bates and firearms and his Jeffersonian beliefs, I don't agree with you guys but I very much accept and respect your desire to believe it as i hope you do mine to disagree. |
|
Lilith
Newbie
Cancer
Lol
Posts: 60 
|
Post by Lilith on Jun 2, 2016 23:03:16 GMT -5
You Americans be crazy, man! Freaking CRAZY!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 23:15:20 GMT -5
You Americans be crazy, man! Freaking CRAZY!!! Britain is, like, our 54th state that nobody pays attention to (like Puerto Rico, Canada, and Japan). But seriously, if we ban guns outright, it will not stop crime. We'll just turn into Great Britain, and we'll be dealing with a lot of knife crimes. At least with a gun, a physically defective person stands a chance against a monstrous asshole. That does even out the playing field quite well. That, and an armed society is a much more polite society. People think twice about messing with a person who is armed and they know it. Sure, you get those yahoos who want to play with their guns, or go for that first and foremost whenever issues arise, but sometimes natural selection just has to happen. I suggest removing all warning labels on everything for a year. Let natural selection happen, well, naturally! Planet is overpopulated as it is... |
|
Lilith
Newbie
Cancer
Lol
Posts: 60
|
Post by Lilith on Jun 2, 2016 23:29:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 3, 2016 0:02:18 GMT -5
We must also remember that the U.K. is a bit smaller than the United States. Of course we're going to have more crime. We also have a fair share of crooked politicians who encourage crime. Let me leave you with a few quotes from better men than I. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin, letter to the Pennsylvania General Assembly. "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons." - Cesare Beccaria "Of Crimes and Punishments". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 8:41:10 GMT -5
To say that weed only affects the user is downright untrue. Think of the second hand smoke, the deaths it causes to get it into this country, the money we have to spend trying to quell the threat, and the utterly dangerous things people do while high. People love to flip out on me and tell me how stupid and wrong I am, like when I said "It's only a matter of time until people drive while high." Even my friends flipped out on me. Well guess what? www.livescience.com/54693-high-drivers-double-after-marijuana-legalization.htmlThis is different to drunk driving ... how exactly? They tried prohibition of alcohol ... didn't work. As far as the deaths caused for it to get into the country, that has everything to do with it being illegal. Where it is legal, that problem doesn't exist because you don't have the worst group of people in control of the substance. Did you also know that the homicide rate tripled and then tripled again during prohibition? And it dropped right back to where it was before after prohibition stopped. Weed is not the problem, just like alcohol wasn't the problem. The problem lies with people who don't use in moderation, and people who think they are more suited to decide what we do with our lives than we are. Stupid laws and the stupid and FAILED war on drugs is the cause of all of the deaths and violence. Not weed. Using alcohol as an example of something which is worse yet tolerated will not work on me, since in my view, anything that alters your state of mind after minimal exposure or use or which degrades your brain over a period of prolonged use ought to be forbidden. This includes alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Putting wealth ahead of the health of the citizens of your country is unacceptable. |
|
Way too much to read to catch up 
To sum up my stance and mostly respond to Odin, my viewpoint is the absolute accession that there is abuse, corruption, and misuse of all governmental systems. That is why the systems we have in place do not work the way they should and people are seeking alternative solutions that would previously have been considered extreme or unheard of. Unfortunately, the freedoms that make America successful in some areas also offer the same freedom to damage it from the inside. 
