>Man you love trying to make this shit about race huh? Or sex, or religion, or religious belief, or political ideology. What I am saying is that if there is a way to legitimately discriminate it will be used. There are power groups in this nation that do want to ensure that others are "kept down" and suppressed. If there is a way there will be those who try and keep those they feel are inferior or different from voting or serving the nation.
> >My opinions have nothing to do with race. They do however have to do >with commitment, culture, education and even ideology. You mean if you disagree with someone's politics they should not be permitted to vote? You know that that the communists in eastern europe and asia have a long history of doing that. Closer to home the same has happened to blacks, asians, women, a wide variety of ethnic groups and religions. I thought this nation was better than that. > >The difference with mine, and that taken towards minorities in the past >is that it would be color blind. In the past if you were jewish, mormon, catholic, 7th day adventist, muslim, sikh or other religious group you were not allowed to vote. Currently if you are a professed atheist you legally cannot vote in around 7 or 8 states. If you profess certain political beliefs you cannot vote in several states as well. In other words its not being colour blind only. What you are also advocating is suppressing the vote of entire groups of people based on their beliefs. That's straight out of Karl Rove's playbook. > >Arnie was raised in Austria by a former Nazi. McCain was raised by a >U.S. military officer, if you don't think their educations and >environments were very different, and you don't think that has anything >to do with the people they end up being, well I think you're wrong. forget McCain and Schwarzenegger for a minute. What about someone who grew up in Guatemala and served in the military before becoming a citizen. Are you suggesting that he would make a worse president than someone who grew up in the backwoods somewhere in Alabama with a family tree that was a straight trunk and who dropped out of school after failing grade 1 for the 10th time? Just because of an accident of birth? > >I would basically have to write a book to explain my politics, and to be >honest, I think over the years we've had enough different topics on here >that you pretty much know where I would stand on something out the box. > We are no longer this new nation founded on the backs of dead Indians >and slaves. We've moved past it, modernized our system of government to >be more inclusive. I happen to think we've gone to far now. Yep them injuns and other minoritys are getting too uppity these days asking for equal right now? Pardon the sarcasm but that's what you're sounding like now. > >I don't feel guilt over something someone else did hundreds of years >ago. I want whats best for my nation, I am after all a proud >nationalist. Yes even at the expense of other nations, they aren't my >people. My people are those legal citizens of this nation, regardless >of race color or creed. My concerns are whats best for us. No one >else. I'm anti globalist, anti UN, anti world bank, imf, nafta all of it. Yes Nafta and globalization, if you look beyond the propaganda, the US has done considerably better by it than before. There's a hell of a lot more jobs gained, according to the Conference Board than have been lost. But hey facts never should stand in the way of ideology now should they. > >I believe in free, not fair trade, my method of doing this would be to >levy the exact same tariffs and taxes against foreign nations as they do >against us. Yes fair trade, then why haven't you complained about the way your government has not been playing fair with the agreements. For instance the US has been violating its own laws by imposing illegal tariffs on imported lumber, according to the Department of Commerce, US courts, the NAFTA Chapter 19 panel for adjudicating trade disputes, and the WTC. In each case the US lost the case that with its own governmental experts stating that the tariffs are illegal. Some fair trade indeed. > >I believe in national defense, and believe that we should defend the >economy as well. I believe that where ever an American is killed we >should instantly declare total war. That we should not only be the >toughest kid on the block, but the most feared. And the most hated in the end. So in other words you prefer the jackboot to soft forces. No wonder the US is seen as the greatest threat to most of the world according to international surveys, and that's among its staunchest allies and other nations (ie., Australia, Britain, Canada, most of Europe, practically all of latin America and a lot of Asia). With that approach when the US really runs into trouble no one will help. > >I think that oil is of national security importance and have no problem >fighting, killing and if need be dying for it. > >I don't believe in the rules of land warfare. I follow them, because >they are legal orders, but I think trying to civilize war is a losing >proposition. Especially when you consider that other than our former >enemies in Europe, no one else follows the rules. There's a reason for those rules, and that is so that your own people don't get treated like that I suppose that the next time that the US is in a real land war with a nation that can fully stand up to it, its OK for American soldiers to be tortured and mistreated then. > >I believe in limited government. One that doesn't interfere in your >life, doesn't tax your wages, doesn't tell you what you can put in or do >with your body, or that of another consenting adult. Yes and by that rule it would be OK for any petty local dictatorships to do what they will and the feds be damned. There was a reason why Eisenhower (a very good general and a republican president btw) sent in Federal troops into Little Rock Arkansas during his tenure. Under your approach that could not have been done and a far worse sore on the nation would have developed. But hey why not its limited Federal government. I thought that was one of the issues that the Civil War was fought over, the supremacy of the Federal government. > >I believe in states rights, that the highest law enforcement officer >should be the county sheriff. That probably 90 or more percent of our >government is unconstitutional and should be done away with. Starting with persinckity things like civil rights no doubt. If I remember correctly it was the county Sheriffs who were the ones who were among the most active in suppressing the civil rights of black citizens in the south. Remember what happened on Bloody Sunday in Selma Alabama? > >I believe in being self sufficient, responsible for no one but those you >claim. > >I don't believe in wealth redistribution. I don't believe in zoning. I >don't believe in eminent domain. I hate the "drug war". Medicaid, >Medicare, and social security disgust me. Yeppers its much more entertaining watching the poor, sick and old die in the streets. And legless beggers are always good for street theater. And hey what's wrong with an industrial plant discharging vaporized lead into the air, directly into what few schools there are under your fantasy. Let the rich get richer and everyone else get poorer and poorer. yes lets even sacrifice the weak on your ideological altar. > >I'm against public schools, at least at state level or higher. I don't >think the federal government should be involved in education, the arts, >communications, or anything not specifically mentioned in the >constitution, which would limit it to interstate and international >trade, and the common defense. Yep keep them ignorant, that way they cannot realize what few rights they do have. Unfortunately the other nations will definitely overtake this country. Why not lets have India or China own the US. Sarcasm aside, if it were not for federal involvement in education things would be far worse. Look at the those states that are at the bottom of the educational achievement rankings, they all have the same attitude. Minimal investment in education. Again Eisenhower was right on this one - education is a national security issue. > >In the end I know that no government here or abroad are going to meet my >own ideological standards, but the government we have comes closest to >what I want. This is my nation. Funny given your standards, I would have thought countries like Somalia, Congo, etc would be closer to your ideal, they mostly have no real national government. No educational suoport, no medicare, medicaid, no drug war, no national standards etc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:259761 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
