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
 
Steve Thomas BMW
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-05-2011, 08:09 PM   #45
1997gtx
Lieutenant
6

 
1997gtx's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 328xi | 08 S5 | 02 S4
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: CT


Posts: 530
iTrader: (0)

One thing we can all agree on is no bumper stickers on our cars
__________________
08 328xi - SOLD | 08 S5 | 02 S4
Appreciate 0
      05-05-2011, 11:31 PM   #46
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
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
I made my first small contribution to the Ron Paul 2012 campaign. The media will kill him, but I am supporting his view of governement, not whom I think will win. Obama will probably win... either that or some Republican that would just be the continuation of the one-party system that just wont stop.
Appreciate 0
      05-06-2011, 10:14 AM   #47
M3Bahn
Lieutenant
58

 
M3Bahn's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ATL


Posts: 487
iTrader: (0)

Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...op-nomination/
Appreciate 0
      05-06-2011, 05:01 PM   #48
11Series
.
6

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven


Posts: 668
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1997gtx View Post
Hah. No trap. Just looking for your understanding of the topics and seeing how that relates to your opinion on them.



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...



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?



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."



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.


Very nice analysis in this post!

It is spot on correct and irrefutable. Thus scottwww will ignore it.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2011, 08:36 PM   #49
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
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 11Series View Post
Very nice analysis in this post!

It is spot on correct and irrefutable. Thus scottwww will ignore it.
There was no response because it would be a waste of breath. What 1997gtx had to say was not enlightened in any way. And your cheering his words with nothing to contribute shows how shallow your point of view is as well. Sometimes it is best to just not say anything because it is a wasted effort.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2011, 09:38 PM   #50
1997gtx
Lieutenant
6

 
1997gtx's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 328xi | 08 S5 | 02 S4
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: CT


Posts: 530
iTrader: (0)

Not enlightened? Apparently, we can add "not knowing what 'enlightened' means" to the list of things you don't know or understand.
__________________
08 328xi - SOLD | 08 S5 | 02 S4
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2011, 10:05 PM   #51
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
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
Not enlightened? Apparently, we can add "not knowing what 'enlightened' means" to the list of things you don't know or understand.
I re-read what you had said in the referenced post. I hadn't originally taken it defensively, and in rereading it, I should not have now.

I over-reacted in my reply to what's his name because in the other thread I thought he was quoting himself, where he had been quoting you, and rudely so.

My original response of not providing a response was where I would rather have been. Really, I didn't respond for the same reason you had mentioned in your reply, that it would be too lenghty

It is best, and actually more interesting, to argue one point at a time. Generally, when people put out a whole laundry list of topics shallowly covered, then they get little response. The poster thinks their list is tremendous. Many others don't bother to read the long list. The thing isn't focused, and certainly not welcoming of discussion, except perhaps as an original post to set the framework for a new thread.

Blather can be by accident or by design, and it still ends in silence.

If it is interesting, it would be best discuss one point at a time when there is disagreement. This reduces the likelihood of misinterepreting one anothers points. And it is best to put those points in their appropriate threads when they would otherwise stray too far off topic.

I don't remember many of your posts, but you seem to be a reasonable writer, whereas someone would rather make personal attacks. The other guy is into personal attack. I had responded to him in that vein.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2011, 11:03 PM   #52
11Series
.
6

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven


Posts: 668
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post

I over-reacted in my reply to what's his name because in the other thread I thought he was quoting himself, where he had been quoting you, and rudely so.

Your apology for over-reacting to my post in the other thread is accepted.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2011, 11:47 PM   #53
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
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 11Series View Post
Your apology for over-reacting to my post in the other thread is accepted.
Thank you.
Appreciate 0
      05-13-2011, 07:36 AM   #54
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
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
Today Ron Paul officially announced his run for the presidency.
Appreciate 0
      05-13-2011, 08:50 AM   #55
OldArmy
Lieutenant
United_States
17

 
Drives: 2007 Z4 3.0si
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central Virginia


Posts: 523
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Today Ron Paul officially announced his run for the presidency.
Congratulations to Ron. And his candidacy just about guarantees (with the 2-3% he'll get) that the dems keep the White House.

Democrats won't vote for him, independents won't vote for him and mainline republicans won't vote for him. But if he carries on to the general election (after losing the republican nomination) he'll draw off enough votes to throw the election to the democrats. Ross Perot all over again.
Appreciate 0
      05-13-2011, 09:59 AM   #56
bosstones
Major
48

 
Drives: o_0
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Suburbia


Posts: 1,071
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldArmy View Post
Congratulations to Ron. And his candidacy just about guarantees (with the 2-3% he'll get) that the dems keep the White House.

Democrats won't vote for him, independents won't vote for him and mainline republicans won't vote for him. But if he carries on to the general election (after losing the republican nomination) he'll draw off enough votes to throw the election to the democrats. Ross Perot all over again.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      05-13-2011, 11:24 AM   #57
11Series
.
6

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven


Posts: 668
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldArmy View Post
Congratulations to Ron. And his candidacy just about guarantees (with the 2-3% he'll get) that the dems keep the White House.

Democrats won't vote for him, independents won't vote for him and mainline republicans won't vote for him. But if he carries on to the general election (after losing the republican nomination) he'll draw off enough votes to throw the election to the democrats. Ross Perot all over again.

Ron Paul will drop out of the race no later than August 2012, because he has to announce his run for his Texas Congressional seat at least 70 days before the Nov 6 2012 election day. He won't risk being completely knocked out of gov't just to run a hopeless cause third-party race for the White House. I don't think you will have to worry about Ron Paul skewing anything, he'll bow out just like he did in 2008.
Appreciate 0
      05-13-2011, 04:34 PM   #58
1997gtx
Lieutenant
6

 
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
Today Ron Paul officially announced his run for the presidency.
It ended before it started ... In regards to killing Bin Laden

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Paul
I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary...
__________________
08 328xi - SOLD | 08 S5 | 02 S4
Appreciate 0
      05-13-2011, 06:32 PM   #59
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
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 OldArmy View Post
Congratulations to Ron. And his candidacy just about guarantees (with the 2-3% he'll get) that the dems keep the White House.

Democrats won't vote for him, independents won't vote for him and mainline republicans won't vote for him. But if he carries on to the general election (after losing the republican nomination) he'll draw off enough votes to throw the election to the democrats. Ross Perot all over again.
Though I would rather see Ron Paul run as a Libertarian, he is running as a Republican. Once he lost in his run for the nomination in 2008 he conceded that and ended his campaign. I would think he would do the same.

Assuming he doesn't carry the nomination (which is a near certainty) I will likely support the Constitution Party candidate or the Libertarian candidate, whomever that may be. I will not support a conventional Republican, and certainly not support any Democrat I have ever seen that could possibly run.

You likely consider it to be a wasted vote. I don't think so. My wasted votes were for George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992 and for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. My not wasted votes were for Jon Anderson in 1980, Ronald Reagan 1984, and Chuck Baldwin 2008. I don't remember if I voted in 1996. If I voted for Bob Dole, then that was also a wasted vote.

Nearly all of the Republicans are just big governement advocates. When they talk about cutting government, all I can believe of them is a token cut just to keep the "competition" going between the Democrats and the Republicans to pretend there is a real difference, and in fact continuing the "one-party" rule of tyranny.
Appreciate 0
      05-14-2011, 12:43 AM   #60
11Series
.
6

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven


Posts: 668
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Though I would rather see Ron Paul run as a Libertarian, he is running as a Republican. Once he lost in his run for the nomination in 2008 he conceded that and ended his campaign. I would think he would do the same.

Assuming he doesn't carry the nomination (which is a near certainty) I will likely support the Constitution Party candidate or the Libertarian candidate, whomever that may be. I will not support a conventional Republican, and certainly not support any Democrat I have ever seen that could possibly run.

You likely consider it to be a wasted vote. I don't think so. My wasted votes were for George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992 and for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. My not wasted votes were for Jon Anderson in 1980, Ronald Reagan 1984, and Chuck Baldwin 2008. I don't remember if I voted in 1996. If I voted for Bob Dole, then that was also a wasted vote.

Nearly all of the Republicans are just big governement advocates. When they talk about cutting government, all I can believe of them is a token cut just to keep the "competition" going between the Democrats and the Republicans to pretend there is a real difference, and in fact continuing the "one-party" rule of tyranny.

I wondered where all the Republicans all went to who voted 97% lock-step behind their party candidate.
Appreciate 0
      05-14-2011, 11:02 AM   #61
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
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 11Series View Post
I wondered where all the Republicans all went to who voted 97% lock-step behind their party candidate.
What were your votes in the general elections?
Appreciate 0
      05-15-2011, 04:22 PM   #62
11Series
.
6

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven


Posts: 668
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
What were your votes in the general elections?

My votes? My votes in the general elections were private. That's what my votes were.

I'm not stupid enough to voluntarily abandon my constitutional right to the Private Ballot by publicly publishing my ballot for everyone in the world to see.
Appreciate 0
      05-15-2011, 05:45 PM   #63
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
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 11Series View Post
My votes? My votes in the general elections were private. That's what my votes were.

I'm not stupid enough to voluntarily abandon my constitutional right to the Private Ballot by publicly publishing my ballot for everyone in the world to see.
The secret ballot is a great thing. I wouldn't diminish your right to keep your votes secret, nor criticize you for doing so. I also would not criticize someone for "wasting" their vote as the other poster had been saying, which elicited my reply. I am comfortable with discussing my votes, though what were specifically my votes is probably not a topic of great interest.

The point is that when you vote for the lesser of two evils, and and the lesser wins, your opinion over time may change to where you discount the value of why you voted that way. I thought the lesser was the way to go. Now I don't feel that way.

For a few elections, I voted for the lesser of two evils. In hindsight, those votes were more a waste than if I had found a third party candidate that I could support with conviction... or at least as protest. One specifically that would have been better was the very one that the other guy had mentioned: Ross Perot. I should have voted for him.

I never liked GHWB from the very beginning when he was running for the Republican Party nomination in 1980. I never liked him. He seemed the lesser of evils compared to Mondale/Ferraro, and he was in a less consequential position than Ronald Reagan held as President. When GHWB ran for president, I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils compared to Michael Dukakis. I don't know what third party candidates there were in 1988, but I probably would value a third party vote in that election to a much higher degree than what I think of my vote for GHWB in the general election. After those compromise votes, at some point you just feel dirty.
Appreciate 0
      05-15-2011, 06:12 PM   #64
11Series
.
6

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven


Posts: 668
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
The secret ballot is a great thing. I wouldn't diminish your right to keep your votes secret, nor criticize you for doing so. I also would not criticize someone for "wasting" their vote as the other poster had been saying, which elicited my reply. I am comfortable with discussing my votes, though what were specifically my votes is probably not a topic of great interest.

The point is that when you vote for the lesser of two evils, and and the lesser wins, your opinion over time may change to where you discount the value of why you voted that way. I thought the lesser was the way to go. Now I don't feel that way.

For a few elections, I voted for the lesser of two evils. In hindsight, those votes were more a waste than if I had found a third party candidate that I could support with conviction... or at least as protest. One specifically that would have been better was the very one that the other guy had mentioned: Ross Perot. I should have voted for him.

I never liked GHWB from the very beginning when he was running for the Republican Party nomination in 1980. I never liked him. He seemed the lesser of evils compared to Mondale/Ferraro, and he was in a less consequential position than Ronald Reagan held as President. When GHWB ran for president, I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils compared to Michael Dukakis. I don't know what third party candidates there were in 1988, but I probably would value a third party vote in that election to a much higher degree than what I think of my vote for GHWB in the general election. After those compromise votes, at some point you just feel dirty.

The problem is that the primary elections are won by the candidates who pander the most to the tiny pool of extremist voters who tend to dominate primary elections.

Voters registered as independents suffer the most. The choice for indies is between two candidates they had no part in selecting, that were selected by the most extremist voters in parties they don't belong to.
Appreciate 0
      05-15-2011, 06:26 PM   #65
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
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 11Series View Post
The problem is that the primary elections are won by the candidates who pander the most to the tiny pool of extremist voters who tend to dominate primary elections.

Voters registered as independents suffer the most. The choice for indies is between two candidates they had no part in selecting, that were selected by the most extremist voters in parties they don't belong to.
Seems to me there isn't much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats once they get into office. They only take a real different stand when they are the party out of power. They get elected, and it is like, "the show must go on", meaning the escalation of government control.
Appreciate 0
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 07:08 AM.




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