BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
GTB Performance
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-31-2007, 09:21 PM   #23
enfield
Civilian
 
enfield's Avatar
 
Drives: Range Rover Sport Supercharged
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ontario

Posts: 940
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
I agree that Dr. Paul has been intellectually consistent but as a result he is completely unelectable. Politics is about building coalitions and compromise and Paul is unable to do either.
Ron Paul, MD is a man of principle and does not change his tune just to make people happy. I wish there was a politician like him in Canada. I am very saddened to hear that a large number of people feel he cannot be elected because he is a man of principle.

People deserve the leaders they get - I guess....
enfield is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      07-31-2007, 09:25 PM   #24
DasBlitz
Major
 
DasBlitz's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw 328i 07
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: new england

Posts: 1,140
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2007 328i  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to DasBlitz
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
If you experienced NYC before Rudy and after Rudy you would never say such a thing. Rudy would be worthy of support if 9/11 had never occurred based on his record as mayor and US Attorney.
Well the facts are he has done nothing major and many have questioned him especially on that day of 9/11. Which trumps anything he has done.

He apparently avoided some fire chiefs he needed certain supplies and such that he cut.

Not to mention even if he was a good mayor that does not mean you will be a good President.
__________________
DasBlitz is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-02-2007, 02:02 PM   #25
SOLOx1
Infamous
 
SOLOx1's Avatar
 
Drives: stoned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: KR

Posts: 65
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield View Post
Ron Paul, MD is a man of principle and does not change his tune just to make people happy. I wish there was a politician like him in Canada. I am very saddened to hear that a large number of people feel he cannot be elected because he is a man of principle.

People deserve the leaders they get - I guess....
I feel the same way but don't worry, the number of supporters for Dr. Paul are growing rapidly everyday.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DasBlitz View Post
Well the facts are he has done nothing major and many have questioned him especially on that day of 9/11. Which trumps anything he has done.

He apparently avoided some fire chiefs he needed certain supplies and such that he cut.

Not to mention even if he was a good mayor that does not mean you will be a good President.
watch this..

Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters
SOLOx1 is offline   South Korea
0
Reply With Quote
      08-02-2007, 03:45 PM   #26
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DasBlitz View Post
Well the facts are he has done nothing major and many have questioned him especially on that day of 9/11. Which trumps anything he has done.

He apparently avoided some fire chiefs he needed certain supplies and such that he cut.

Not to mention even if he was a good mayor that does not mean you will be a good President.
Actually, he's "done" what anyone else could/would/should have done...nothing exceptional. He's also proven (his family history and the way he broke those marriages) that he only cares about his behind, and nothing else (let alone 300M Americans and 180k troops in Iraq) matters to him. He can use 9/11 events to gain political grounds, however, he has nothing else in his pocket...


He's fake, I much prefer some other Rep candidates with real life experiences...
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-03-2007, 03:57 AM   #27
SOLOx1
Infamous
 
SOLOx1's Avatar
 
Drives: stoned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: KR

Posts: 65
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post
Actually, he's "done" what anyone else could/would/should have done...nothing exceptional. He's also proven (his family history and the way he broke those marriages) that he only cares about his behind, and nothing else (let alone 300M Americans and 180k troops in Iraq) matters to him. He can use 9/11 events to gain political grounds, however, he has nothing else in his pocket...


He's fake, I much prefer some other Rep candidates with real life experiences...
Ron Paul.

Last edited by SOLOx1; 08-03-2007 at 04:15 AM.
SOLOx1 is offline   South Korea
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2007, 01:08 AM   #28
MrFrizzle
Private First Class
 
MrFrizzle's Avatar
 
Drives: '07 328xi
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 116
iTrader: (0)

^^Yeah, Ron Paul is definitely the most authentic candidate out there. He just feels very real, and does not fit the normal "political slimeball" image. He is also one of the few who does his homework, and has full knowledge of everything he talks about.
__________________
Life is good
But a BMW makes it better
MrFrizzle is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2011, 12:40 AM   #29
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll again
link

I would definitely vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney.
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2011, 01:06 AM   #30
ghosthi32
Banned
 
Drives: Water camel
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: strait of hormuz

Posts: 2,516
iTrader: (0)

i wouldnt vote for either
ghosthi32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2011, 01:28 AM   #31
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghosthi32 View Post
i wouldnt vote for either
Would you vote for anyone that CPAC likes?

Who would get your vote if he/she was running for the presidency?

Ron Paul would be a great Libertarian as the chief executive of the U.S. government. For statewide offices I likely would not support Libertarians. My opinion is to decentralize, returning to the states and the people the power (and the right of self-determination) that was wrongfullly taken by the U.S. government.
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2011, 01:42 AM   #32
ghosthi32
Banned
 
Drives: Water camel
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: strait of hormuz

Posts: 2,516
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Would you vote for anyone that CPAC likes?

Who would get your vote if he/she was running for the presidency?

Ron Paul would be a great Libertarian as the chief executive of the U.S. government. For statewide offices I likely would not support Libertarians. My opinion is to decentralize, returning to the states and the people the power (and the right of self-determination) that was wrongfullly taken by the U.S. government.
ill wait and see until 2012.

i don't like libertarians. A nation needs a strong central government but not too involved. For some reason, i think you want the Articles of confederation back.
ghosthi32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2011, 08:39 AM   #33
Negotiator
Lieutenant
 
Negotiator's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 GTI
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fairfax, VA

Posts: 539
iTrader: (0)

Every time I listen to a Ron Paul interview, I find myself going through several stages:

1) Man, isn't this dude crazy? I remember him saying some stupid shit before.

2) Hmmm, he's actually making some good points. Why did I think he was crazy? Did i confuse him with someone else?

3) Dude makes a bat shit statement, and I finally remember why I thought he was an idiot to begin with.

Do it GOP, bring out the guy who wants to get rid of the FDA for the next election.
Negotiator is offline   Ukraine
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2011, 11:22 AM   #34
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghosthi32 View Post
ill wait and see until 2012.

i don't like libertarians. A nation needs a strong central government but not too involved. For some reason, i think you want the Articles of confederation back.
Just scale back to Constitutional limits. I don't want a strong pan-American government except for the things that are it's Constitutional duty. That would include providing for the common defense, and protecting the individuals rights as enumerated in the Amendments.

One part of the Constitution has been mis-applied more than any other-- the commerce clause. It has been used by government to diminish, and perhaps even to negate the much more obvious intent of the whole document. Though I do not like some of the Amendments that were later added to to Constitution (most notably the 16th), in order to bring it closer to what I believe was the original intent, I would support a revision of the commerce clause, or an amendment that the courts would uphold, if that could be achieved without a constitutional convention.

The Articles of Confederation were too close to anarchy. I am a Constitutionalist, not an anarchist.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-14-2011, 11:44 AM   #35
1997gtx
Lieutenant
 
1997gtx's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 328xi | 08 S5 | 02 S4
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: CT

Posts: 530
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Just scale back to Constitutional limits. I don't want a strong pan-American government except for the things that are it's Constitutional duty. That would include providing for the common defense, and protecting the individuals rights as enumerated in the Amendments.

One part of the Constitution has been mis-applied more than any other-- the commerce clause. It has been used by government to diminish, and perhaps even to negate the much more obvious intent of the whole document. Though I do not like some of the Amendments that were later added to to Constitution (most notably the 16th), in order to bring it closer to what I believe was the original intent, I would support a revision of the commerce clause, or an amendment that the courts would uphold, if that could be achieved without a constitutional convention.

The Articles of Confederation were too close to anarchy. I am a Constitutionalist, not an anarchist.
Three questions:

(1) What about the general welfare clause(s)?
(2) What was the "intent" of the commerce clause and why?
(3) What do you think about the recent legislation proposed by some states to deny citizenship to people born here without a citizen parent?
__________________
08 328xi - SOLD | 08 S5 | 02 S4
1997gtx is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-17-2011, 12:32 AM   #36
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1997gtx View Post
Three questions:

(1) What about the general welfare clause(s)?
(2) What was the "intent" of the commerce clause and why?
(3) What do you think about the recent legislation proposed by some states to deny citizenship to people born here without a citizen parent?
I haven't had time for the forums lately. This looks like some reasonably simple questions. Are you laying some kind of a trap?

1. Promote the general welfare is part of the preamble. It is like a topic sentence. What follows supports the topic.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

2. The commerce clause is providing regulatory authority to the the U.S. in matters of business that crosses state borders or national borders. This too is simple. If the U.S. didn't regulate such business, then who would have jurisdiction when the two parties were to disagree? Maybe this is not a very precise explanation, but it is much closer to the meaning of the clause in context than what it has been used to defend.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

3. On th matter of children born to foreign parents... I am not 100% resolved on how I would deal with this. I tend toward repeal of the amendment that establihed it, or at least that part of the amendment. This amendment served the purpose of declaring slaves that were born in the USA to be citizens. This was necessary to progress to winning their freedom and winning the war against the Confederate States. That purpose is done. Now it is used primarily for the purpose of illegal aliens who want to establish birthrights for their offspring. It is a perversion of the original intent of the amendment. Since the amendment has no use as originally intended, it should probably be scrapped. Other portions of the amendment appear to be somewhat redundant with other parts of the constitution except where it deals specifically with the civil war.

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What is your take on these parts of the Constitution and how they relate to the whole?
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-17-2011, 09:41 AM   #37
xbook
Lieutenant Colonel
 
xbook's Avatar
 
Drives: '14 EBII M235i & '06 R53 GP
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northridge, CA

Posts: 1,536
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E82  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll again
link

I would definitely vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney.
Too bad Fox News used doctored footage to drum up a fake story about the CPAC Straw Poll.

Short story is they tried to push a story of people in the crowd booing the announcer after he said Paul as the winner of the 2011 straw poll. Thing is they used footage from last year to prove their point. And at this year's convention the crowd was cheering for him not booing.

more here:



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/1...mear-ron-paul/
__________________
xbook is offline   Zimbabwe
0
Reply With Quote
      02-17-2011, 01:00 PM   #38
1997gtx
Lieutenant
 
1997gtx's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 328xi | 08 S5 | 02 S4
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: CT

Posts: 530
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
I haven't had time for the forums lately. This looks like some reasonably simple questions. Are you laying some kind of a trap?
Hah. No trap. Just looking for your understanding of the topics and seeing how that relates to your opinion on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
1. Promote the general welfare is part of the preamble. It is like a topic sentence. What follows supports the topic.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
You forgot about the SECOND mention (hence the "s" in "clause(s)" in my question).

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
2. The commerce clause is providing regulatory authority to the the U.S. in matters of business that crosses state borders or national borders. This too is simple. If the U.S. didn't regulate such business, then who would have jurisdiction when the two parties were to disagree? Maybe this is not a very precise explanation, but it is much closer to the meaning of the clause in context than what it has been used to defend.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
No - this is not a simple topic. Your interpretation of it is simple. It's an incredibly complex idea, as evidenced by all the Supreme Court decisions surrounding it.

Don't you think that Health Care, for example, is a business that is practiced across state lines?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
3. On th matter of children born to foreign parents... I am not 100% resolved on how I would deal with this. I tend toward repeal of the amendment that establihed it, or at least that part of the amendment. This amendment served the purpose of declaring slaves that were born in the USA to be citizens. This was necessary to progress to winning their freedom and winning the war against the Confederate States. That purpose is done. Now it is used primarily for the purpose of illegal aliens who want to establish birthrights for their offspring. It is a perversion of the original intent of the amendment. Since the amendment has no use as originally intended, it should probably be scrapped. Other portions of the amendment appear to be somewhat redundant with other parts of the constitution except where it deals specifically with the civil war.
Here's the problem with this argument. In the part I bolded above: first, saying "now it is used primarily for illegal aliens..." is pure nonsense. Says who? Right-wing blogs? Do you have any evidence of this at all? Now, EVEN if we take that as fact (which is ludicrous), the second half of the bolded part could be said about many things in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment, for example, was designed to help form state-militias to rise up against an oppressive government. Surely, we don't have the need for this now. And if we did, wouldn't a militia be what the police, etc. are today? There is no organized "militia" by random people owning guns. But surely you're not one of those who would say "The 2nd amendment has no use as originally intended, so it should probably be scrapped."

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
What is your take on these parts of the Constitution and how they relate to the whole?
My exact response to each of these would run many pages in length. I can, however, summarize my thoughts on on simply:

(1) Including "general welfare" was a smart move by the Framers because they knew there were things the government would eventually have to provide for that didn't exist yet. Things like schooling, etc...
(2) The Commerce Clause is incredibly complex. And while I can see your point in regards to framers intending a stricter interpretation of it, I tend to side with the Supreme Court's consistent decisions of expanding the power.
(3) Children born here are citizens regardless of their parent's citizen status. This is only an issue because right-wingers don't like illegal immigrants. When white immigrants came over in the 1900's and had children, no one in their right minds would have EVER challenged their citizen-status. This is an affront on a very specific minority in this country, and it's an embarrassment to our Constitution.
__________________
08 328xi - SOLD | 08 S5 | 02 S4
1997gtx is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-04-2011, 09:23 PM   #39
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Ron Paul says:

"I just sent in the final paperwork and will definitely be in the GOP Presidential Debate in South Carolina on Thursday. The grassroots in planning a Money Bomb that day, and I hope you'll tune in to broadcast and consider donating!"
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-04-2011, 10:37 PM   #40
M3Bahn
Lieutenant
 
M3Bahn's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ATL

Posts: 487
iTrader: (0)

Ron Paul is great, just be careful having a one of his bumper stickers on your car.

Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists


http://www.prisonplanet.com/secret-s...errorists.html
M3Bahn is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-04-2011, 10:57 PM   #41
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3Bahn View Post
Ron Paul is great, just be careful having a one of his bumper stickers on your car.

Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists


http://www.prisonplanet.com/secret-s...errorists.html
I have never put a bumper sticker of any kind on any of my cars. But I was pretty vocal in my support for Chuck Baldwin in 2008. I am probably marked for deletion.

I'll have to read that document. Freakin government can't take it when people are running against their rigged "two party" establishment. Government is the problem.
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-04-2011, 11:36 PM   #42
M3Bahn
Lieutenant
 
M3Bahn's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ATL

Posts: 487
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
I have never put a bumper sticker of any kind on any of my cars. But I was pretty vocal in my support for Chuck Baldwin in 2008. I am probably marked for deletion.

I'll have to read that document. Freakin government can't take it when people are running against their rigged "two party" establishment. Government is the problem.


Actually bumper stickers are attract cops as well, it's one of the things they look for when profiling you.
M3Bahn is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-05-2011, 04:34 AM   #43
OldArmy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2007 Z4 3.0si
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central Virginia

Posts: 523
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M3Bahn View Post


Actually bumper stickers are attract cops as well, it's one of the things they look for when profiling you.

So I guess the "Honk if you've never seen a .45 fired from a moving truck!" sticker is not such a good idea?
OldArmy is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-05-2011, 10:13 AM   #44
M3Bahn
Lieutenant
 
M3Bahn's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ATL

Posts: 487
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldArmy View Post
So I guess the "Honk if you've never seen a .45 fired from a moving truck!" sticker is not such a good idea?
How about a moving quad?

M3Bahn is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST