darkSpyro

Quote: AvatariDragon

Quote: UncleBob

Quote: Mrmorrises

And because half of them are power craving assholes who seek more control over the people.

In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

Implying we deserve a crappy government?

If We the People voted for a crappy government, then we deserve it, do we not?

Can we just not have politics involved?

It's the least favorite subject to talk about.

For someone who doesn't like me, you sure seem to come into a lot of topics I've started.

Continuing a conversation that was closed just recently... wow. <.<

Quote: UncleBob

For someone who doesn't like me, you sure seem to come into a lot of topics I've started.

Yeah mainly because I want to point them out as un needed topics or a been there done that stuff. Also irrelevant post from you in your topic.

even though i disagree with most of this guys posts...
Quote: Trix Master 100

Can we just not have politics involved?

It's the least favorite subject to talk about.

theres nothing wrong with discussing politics here, just because a few people dont like it doesnt mean everyone else can't talk about it

Quote: Aura24

Continuing a conversation that was closed just recently... wow. <.<

it's happened before and no one complained then, just ignore this topic

Quote: Aura24

Continuing a conversation that was closed just recently... wow. <.<

I still had something to say on the subject.

Quote: Trix Master 100

Yeah mainly because I want to point them out as un needed topics or a been there done that stuff. Also irrelevant post from you in your topic.

So... you're like some sort of self-appointed topic police, going around telling folks when their topics are un-needed and irrelevant?

Quote: arceustheprime

theres nothing wrong with discussing politics here, just because a few people dont like it doesnt mean everyone else can't talk about it [...] just ignore this topic

The worst part is that not only is this topic clearly started by me, someone they both profess to be tired of reading posts by, but it's pretty clear by the topic that it's political.

If I see a topic about something I don't like, I tend to not go in that topic. If I find myself in a topic that is about something I don't like, I tend to not reply.

I guess you don't get as much drama that way though.

Quote: UncleBob

So... you're like some sort of self-appointed topic police, going around telling folks when their topics are un-needed and irrelevant?

Well I just say my thoughts on it and leave. Is that also a crime?

Because whenever someone bashes on Dark in their own thread, you'd probably rush into it to say something. With that said, it makes you sound like a hypocrite.

Quote: Trix Master 100

Well I just say my thoughts on it and leave.

When does that leaving part happen?

Quote:

Because whenever someone bashes on Dark in their own thread, you'd probably rush into it to say something. With that said, it makes you sound like a hypocrite.

Wait... are you talking about when folks came into MY thread, bashing on dark (at least you admit it was bashing)? Or are you talking about the thread where someone asked why dark was getting all the hate?

Quote: UncleBob

Quote: Trix Master 100

Well I just say my thoughts on it and leave.

When does that leaving part happen?

Quote:

Because whenever someone bashes on Dark in their own thread, you'd probably rush into it to say something. With that said, it makes you sound like a hypocrite.

Wait... are you talking about when folks came into MY thread, bashing on dark (at least you admit it was bashing)? Or are you talking about the thread where someone asked why dark was getting all the hate?

The Leave part happens when you're done responding stubbornly whether if you lost or if I lost. If you were Bravo101 I think I would have left the topic alone, because it's too cringe worthy and I despise the guy badly to the point I wish he was permanently banned from the internet.

I was actually referring to the topics before those.

Oh. So you're not leaving. Darn.

And there's no "winning" or "losing" here. There's no one keeping score. It's not a game. If you think it is, then you can call yourself a winner and move on.

Quote: UncleBob

Oh. So you're not leaving. Darn.

And there's no "winning" or "losing" here. There's no one keeping score. It's not a game. If you think it is, then you can call yourself a winner and move on.

That's not what I meant. I meant in debate wise. But eh. Nothing gets in your mind about it. I'll be on my way, Cheerio.

Hasta. Congrats on "winning". Spend those "points" wisely.

Quote: UncleBob

Hasta. Congrats on "winning". Spend those "points" wisely.

Okay now you're pushing your luck. That there was a little uncalled especially after I said such earlier. Nice move to bringing me back. Because I'm letting that slide.

You're letting that slide by coming back and posting veiled threats? Gotcha.

Have some more points.

Quote: Pixilism

itt: two bulls ram their heads against each others, only one will emerge victorious

That doesn't sound like anyone "wins". And now I need an Advil.

What the.. okay..

Quote: Trix Master 100

Can we just not have politics involved?

It's the least favorite subject to talk about.

Why exclude the people who want to discuss politics?

Quote: UncleBob

Quote: AvatariDragon

Quote: UncleBob

In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

Implying we deserve a crappy government?

If We the People voted for a crappy government, then we deserve it, do we not?

Quote: UncleBob

If We the People voted for a crappy government, then we deserve it, do we not?

Yes.

But if the government promised something when running for election and then turned their back on us once they got into office, it's not really the fault of the people. They were promised something and it was then denied once we put them in office.

Quote: UncleBob

Oh. So you're not leaving. Darn.

And there's no "winning" or "losing" here. There's no one keeping score. It's not a game. If you think it is, then you can call yourself a winner and move on.

What the hell?

Are you sure you're not arguing for the sake of arguing now?

What is this? I am one really conservative mother******. Would you like to live in a dictatorship? About 250 we fought a war against that. I hate this government but here there is a chance for it to change. If you don't like the way the dictator runs the country your screwed. You don't have to like it but don't complain.

Quote: Mad Jack1123

What is this? I am one really conservative mother******. Would you like to live in a dictatorship? About 250 we fought a war against that. I hate this government but here there is a chance for it to change. If you don't like the way the dictator runs the country your screwed. You don't have to like it but don't complain.

And currently we have our very first dictator in office. Hopefully in 2016 we'll elect our 44th president to the office.

^Oh please calm down. I don't like how he runs it right now but I doubt some conservative would be any better.

Quote: CAV

^Oh please calm down. I don't like how he runs it right now but I doubt some conservative would be any better.

All I'm saying is that no conservative would wipe their ass all over the Constitution the way our current dictator does.

Quote: UncleBob

Quote: Pixilism

itt: two bulls ram their heads against each others, only one will emerge victorious

That doesn't sound like anyone "wins". And now I need an Advil.

You ok there, grandpa???
You seem to be loosing literally millions of hats!

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

^Oh please calm down. I don't like how he runs it right now but I doubt some conservative would be any better.

All I'm saying is that no conservative would wipe their ass all over the Constitution the way our current dictator does.

A document that's 200+ years old could use some updating from time to time (within reason). I don't like Obama but there is no way in hell that a conservative would be any better. Obama himself seems more conservative than people give him credit for.

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

^Oh please calm down. I don't like how he runs it right now but I doubt some conservative would be any better.

All I'm saying is that no conservative would wipe their ass all over the Constitution the way our current dictator does.

I just pictured that literally in my head.
Oh god.

Quote: CAV

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

^Oh please calm down. I don't like how he runs it right now but I doubt some conservative would be any better.

All I'm saying is that no conservative would wipe their ass all over the Constitution the way our current dictator does.

A document that's 200+ years old could use some updating from time to time (within reason). I don't like Obama but there is no way in hell that a conservative would be any better. Obama himself seems more conservative than people give him credit for.

Within reason? Obama is so far from "within reason" that it's scary, and disappointing that he won in 2012. He's a very bad man who despises America. He wants to change the constitution faster and more dramatically than within reason.

i am of enjoying your response very
here is my visual representation

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

Quote: Mrmorrises

All I'm saying is that no conservative would wipe their ass all over the Constitution the way our current dictator does.

A document that's 200+ years old could use some updating from time to time (within reason). I don't like Obama but there is no way in hell that a conservative would be any better. Obama himself seems more conservative than people give him credit for.

Within reason? Obama is so far from "within reason" that it's scary, and disappointing that he won in 2012. He's a very bad man who despises America. He wants to change the constitution faster and more dramatically than within reason.

In what ways do you believe he is changing the constitution.

There are some fields where I disagree with the change. But the big reason I'm thinking of started with Bush, not Obama.

Quote: CAV

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

A document that's 200+ years old could use some updating from time to time (within reason). I don't like Obama but there is no way in hell that a conservative would be any better. Obama himself seems more conservative than people give him credit for.

Within reason? Obama is so far from "within reason" that it's scary, and disappointing that he won in 2012. He's a very bad man who despises America. He wants to change the constitution faster and more dramatically than within reason.

In what ways do you believe he is changing the constitution.

There are some fields where I disagree with the change. But the big reason I'm thinking of started with Bush, not Obama.

How about the absurd uses of executive power? That's a blatant "**** you" to the Constitution.

And he gets away with it all because people still falsely believe that he is making "progress". By the election of 2008, the Iraw war and the economy (neither of which were Bush's fault) were in such bad shape that the majority blindly turned to him for "change" and "hope" and ended up electing a radical dictator.

*if whatshisname would have won that first election*
Some People: YOU RACIST BASTARDS! JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK YOU NO VOTE 4 HIM!

Annnnyyywaaayy
I have no idea what's going on here :D
So I am just going to cut in when i have no business to
Last election, wasn't voting for Obama basically the lesser of the two evils? As Romney wasn't a saint either.

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

Quote: Mrmorrises

Within reason? Obama is so far from "within reason" that it's scary, and disappointing that he won in 2012. He's a very bad man who despises America. He wants to change the constitution faster and more dramatically than within reason.

In what ways do you believe he is changing the constitution.

There are some fields where I disagree with the change. But the big reason I'm thinking of started with Bush, not Obama.

How about the absurd uses of executive power? That's a blatant "**** you" to the Constitution.

And he gets away with it all because people still falsely believe that he is making "progress". By the election of 2008, the Iraw war and the economy (neither of which were Bush's fault) were in such bad shape that the majority blindly turned to him for "change" and "hope" and ended up electing a radical dictator.

What abuse of executive power? The Senate and House are divided and don't do ****, choosing to bicker and fight and even shut down the government rather than get things done and help the people. When we get to that point, of course the executive power will have to step in and do something. If he didn't do anything, you and everybody else would complain about how he did nothing and just let it stand by while no progress was made.
The war on terrorism was pretty clearly set in motion by Bush. I won't point all fingers at him for the economy's collapse but he's the one that started the war(s), and continued them.

And remind me why Socialism is such a bad thing? I hate it when people throw the word around as something dirty when it isn't.

Quote: CAV

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

In what ways do you believe he is changing the constitution.

There are some fields where I disagree with the change. But the big reason I'm thinking of started with Bush, not Obama.

How about the absurd uses of executive power? That's a blatant "**** you" to the Constitution.

And he gets away with it all because people still falsely believe that he is making "progress". By the election of 2008, the Iraw war and the economy (neither of which were Bush's fault) were in such bad shape that the majority blindly turned to him for "change" and "hope" and ended up electing a radical dictator.

What abuse of executive power? The Senate and House are divided and don't do ****, choosing to bicker and fight and even shut down the government rather than get things done and help the people. When we get to that point, of course the executive power will have to step in and do something. If he didn't do anything, you and everybody else would complain about how he did nothing and just let it stand by while no progress was made.
The war on terrorism was pretty clearly set in motion by Bush. I won't point all fingers at him for the economy's collapse but he's the one that started the war(s), and continued them.

And remind me why Socialism is such a bad thing? I hate it when people throw the word around as something dirty when it isn't.

The House and Senate bickering not getting anything done is better than letting Obama make his so-called progress. I'm glad that they don't bow down and accept his policies. You have to pay attention to what exactly our dictator has in mind when he says "progress", and what he has in mind certainly isn't appealing to me, being a conservative man.

And no, Bush was voted into starting the Iraq War by the House and Senate, many of which were Democrats. But we all know that the media hates his guts, so they decided to wage a war against Bush because the House and Senate voted for him to attack Iraq.

Socialism is bad because America was made with a Capitalist economy in mind, and if we were to become socialist we would not be the United States of America. The founding fathers established our country this way.

There certainly are problems with Capitalism, of course, but there are problems in every economic system. We do know our history, though. Socialism did not work out for the USSR, and it certainly isn't doing Europe much good (some leftists like to claim that it is, though).

Simply put, saying that "America would be better if it were Socialist" is like saying "A circle would be better if it were a triangle".

Quote: Mrmorrises

The House and Senate bickering not getting anything done is better than letting Obama make his so-called progress. I'm glad that they don't bow down and accept his policies. You have to pay attention to what exactly our dictator has in mind when he says "progress", and what he has in mind certainly isn't appealing to me, being a conservative man.

And no, Bush was voted into starting the Iraq War by the House and Senate, many of which were Democrats. But we all know that the media hates his guts, so they decided to wage a war against Bush because the House and Senate voted for him to attack Iraq.

Socialism is bad because America was made with a Capitalist economy in mind, and if we were to become socialist we would not be the United States of America. The founding fathers established our country this way.

There certainly are problems with Capitalism, of course, but there are problems in every economic system. We do know our history, though. Socialism did not work out for the USSR, and it certainly isn't doing Europe much good (some leftists like to claim that it is, though).

Simply put, saying that "America would be better if it were Socialist" is like saying "A circle would be better if it were a triangle".

That's not better than Obama. That's considerably worse. Obama is not a good president but I'd prefer it over the constant filibusters and inconclusive votes.
Being a liberal man myself, I think Obama isn't liberal enough. I'd argue he's still on the conservative end of the stick, especially compared to leaders in the EU or Nordic nations.

Well it's worth keeping in mind that I am not a Democrat. I don't like Democrats. But I will admit that I have considerably more disdain for Republicans.

USSR was communist, which is more extreme than socialism.
And you don't really give much reason for why socialism would be a problem other than that "that's not how America made us". Government regulation of big corporations and various services and goods (i.e. the internet) would be beneficial to us and our currently flagging economy. The system we have now is allowing pseudo-monopolies and trusts to take place, which does us no good in either the short or long term.

The US would benefit from either going to socialism, or making significant changes to their capitalist structure. Right now it's not working.

Quote: CAV

Quote: Mrmorrises

The House and Senate bickering not getting anything done is better than letting Obama make his so-called progress. I'm glad that they don't bow down and accept his policies. You have to pay attention to what exactly our dictator has in mind when he says "progress", and what he has in mind certainly isn't appealing to me, being a conservative man.

And no, Bush was voted into starting the Iraq War by the House and Senate, many of which were Democrats. But we all know that the media hates his guts, so they decided to wage a war against Bush because the House and Senate voted for him to attack Iraq.

Socialism is bad because America was made with a Capitalist economy in mind, and if we were to become socialist we would not be the United States of America. The founding fathers established our country this way.

There certainly are problems with Capitalism, of course, but there are problems in every economic system. We do know our history, though. Socialism did not work out for the USSR, and it certainly isn't doing Europe much good (some leftists like to claim that it is, though).

Simply put, saying that "America would be better if it were Socialist" is like saying "A circle would be better if it were a triangle".

That's not better than Obama. That's considerably worse. Obama is not a good president but I'd prefer it over the constant filibusters and inconclusive votes.
Being a liberal man myself, I think Obama isn't liberal enough. I'd argue he's still on the conservative end of the stick, especially compared to leaders in the EU or Nordic nations.

Well it's worth keeping in mind that I am not a Democrat. I don't like Democrats. But I will admit that I have considerably more disdain for Republicans.

USSR was communist, which is more extreme than socialism.
And you don't really give much reason for why socialism would be a problem other than that "that's not how America made us". Government regulation of big corporations and various services and goods (i.e. the internet) would be beneficial to us and our currently flagging economy. The system we have now is allowing pseudo-monopolies and trusts to take place, which does us no good in either the short or long term.

The US would benefit from either going to socialism, or making significant changes to their capitalist structure. Right now it's not working.

If Obama isn't liberal enough for you, than I can't imagine you considering any of his predecessors, Democrat or Republican, to be liberal enough.

"That's not how America made us" is a valid argument. If we're going to suddenly make the "significant changes" to our capitalist system, then what's to stop our radical liberals from turning the constitution upside down? We've been functioning strongly compared to other countries for 200+ years with this constitution, and now you desire a switch to socialism? If we do that, what's to stop us from changing all of our country's traits that define us as the United States Of America?

Actually I would argue that many previous presidents were fantastic and among the best leaders of their time, if not all time. But Obama made promises that he's failed to keep, and him, the House, and the Senate are moving way too slow. Conservatives, conversely, would have us taking steps backwards, which does little to help us. We need to revamp the election system so that it isn't a two-party race.

We're not doing very well right now. There are several flaws that mess around with the current economy. They need to be fixed, and things like socialism are in the right direction (even if you don't want to go that extreme). Trickle-down economics don't work and could only further damage us.

~AvatariForPresident~

Quote: CAV

Actually I would argue that many previous presidents were fantastic and among the best leaders of their time, if not all time. But Obama made promises that he's failed to keep, and him, the House, and the Senate are moving way too slow. Conservatives, conversely, would have us taking steps backwards, which does little to help us. We need to revamp the election system so that it isn't a two-party race.

We're not doing very well right now. There are several flaws that mess around with the current economy. They need to be fixed, and things like socialism are in the right direction (even if you don't want to go that extreme). Trickle-down economics don't work and could only further damage us.

How would conservatives take us backwards? It really does depend on what your idea of "backwards" is.

But whenever I think of Obama and "progress" I think of a country dominated by a government that has more power than the Constitution entitles it to, a place where illegal immigrants run rampant, committing crimes, and a bunch of people on welfare for generations. That doesn't sound like forward to me.

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

Actually I would argue that many previous presidents were fantastic and among the best leaders of their time, if not all time. But Obama made promises that he's failed to keep, and him, the House, and the Senate are moving way too slow. Conservatives, conversely, would have us taking steps backwards, which does little to help us. We need to revamp the election system so that it isn't a two-party race.

We're not doing very well right now. There are several flaws that mess around with the current economy. They need to be fixed, and things like socialism are in the right direction (even if you don't want to go that extreme). Trickle-down economics don't work and could only further damage us.

How would conservatives take us backwards? It really does depend on what your idea of "backwards" is.

But whenever I think of Obama and "progress" I think of a country dominated by a government that has more power than the Constitution entitles it to, a place where illegal immigrants run rampant, committing crimes, and a bunch of people on welfare for generations. That doesn't sound like forward to me.

woah take a step away from the keyboard tony abbott

Quote: arceustheprime

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

Actually I would argue that many previous presidents were fantastic and among the best leaders of their time, if not all time. But Obama made promises that he's failed to keep, and him, the House, and the Senate are moving way too slow. Conservatives, conversely, would have us taking steps backwards, which does little to help us. We need to revamp the election system so that it isn't a two-party race.

We're not doing very well right now. There are several flaws that mess around with the current economy. They need to be fixed, and things like socialism are in the right direction (even if you don't want to go that extreme). Trickle-down economics don't work and could only further damage us.

How would conservatives take us backwards? It really does depend on what your idea of "backwards" is.

But whenever I think of Obama and "progress" I think of a country dominated by a government that has more power than the Constitution entitles it to, a place where illegal immigrants run rampant, committing crimes, and a bunch of people on welfare for generations. That doesn't sound like forward to me.

woah take a step away from the keyboard tony abbott

The liberal Prime Minister of Australia?

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: arceustheprime

Quote: Mrmorrises

How would conservatives take us backwards? It really does depend on what your idea of "backwards" is.

But whenever I think of Obama and "progress" I think of a country dominated by a government that has more power than the Constitution entitles it to, a place where illegal immigrants run rampant, committing crimes, and a bunch of people on welfare for generations. That doesn't sound like forward to me.

woah take a step away from the keyboard tony abbott

The liberal Prime Minister of Australia?

uhhh yeah
everything's kinda the opposite over here in politics

Quote: AvatariDragon

Well what about the people that voted for someone else, but their choice wasn't elected?

Individuals don't elect politicians - "We the People" do.

Quote:

Or the people fooled by a politician's promises, like they think it'll actually happen. Sometimes ignorance plays a big role in choosing who should lead.
Mistakes are always made by people, but that doesn't mean an entire country should be blamed or punished.

If ignorant people elect bad politicians, then perhaps they'll learn and next time 'round they'll do a better job not electing someone who's a bad choice. Granted, this didn't work out when we elected Dubya and Obama twice in a row... but, when half the country doesn't even bother voting... well, We the People get what we deserve.

Quote:

Also, Idk why you decided to make a new topic about this when the original topic was closed. You could've just PM'd me or something, really.

Because I like public conversation? Seems like a lot has been discussed in this thread.


Quote: CAV

But if the government promised something when running for election and then turned their back on us once they got into office, it's not really the fault of the people. They were promised something and it was then denied once we put them in office.

Two-step process:

A.) Stop electing people who are obviously going to break their promises.
B.) Elect someone who will put laws in place that will hold politicians accountable when they break their promises.

Quote: UncleBob

Quote: AvatariDragon

Well what about the people that voted for someone else, but their choice wasn't elected?

Individuals don't elect politicians - "We the People" do.

Quote: UncleBob

Quote: CAV

But if the government promised something when running for election and then turned their back on us once they got into office, it's not really the fault of the people. They were promised something and it was then denied once we put them in office.

Two-step process:

A.) Stop electing people who are obviously going to break their promises.
B.) Elect someone who will put laws in place that will hold politicians accountable when they break their promises.

You do realize how our system is set up to work, right? The best candidates come forward and the people vote for who they think can do the best job.

We the People have allowed the process to get so mucked up with the two-party system that they can run virtually the same exact candidates against each other, it's obvious that neither one of them are fit or qualified for the position and yet, we will still give the position to one of them because we've made third parties a joke in this country.

When you vote for a politician who *already* has a record of breaking his promises, then you shouldn't be surprised when he continues that record.

I swear it's like Bob does whatever it takes to blame the people and not the leader(s) who make the mistakes.

Quote: Mrmorrises

How would conservatives take us backwards? It really does depend on what your idea of "backwards" is.

But whenever I think of Obama and "progress" I think of a country dominated by a government that has more power than the Constitution entitles it to, a place where illegal immigrants run rampant, committing crimes, and a bunch of people on welfare for generations. That doesn't sound like forward to me.

Well if you think the right direction is super strict immigration processes (in a nation that always claimed to be open for all) and no government assistance to people who got ****ed by the capitalist economy, then yeah I do think that's a step in the wrong direction, and is heading backwards.

Quote: UncleBob

A.) Stop electing people who are obviously going to break their promises.
B.) Elect someone who will put laws in place that will hold politicians accountable when they break their promises.

A. There's no way to tell if someone is lying or not.
B. Nobody put in an office of power in today's world would limit their own power (at least not in these United States).

Quote: UncleBob

You do realize how our system is set up to work, right? The best candidates come forward and the people vote for who they think can do the best job.

We the People have allowed the process to get so mucked up with the two-party system that they can run virtually the same exact candidates against each other, it's obvious that neither one of them are fit or qualified for the position and yet, we will still give the position to one of them because we've made third parties a joke in this country.

When you vote for a politician who *already* has a record of breaking his promises, then you shouldn't be surprised when he continues that record.

The two party system did not come about because we the people made it that way. It came about because the First Past the Post election system we have in place is inherently flawed and allows for a two party system to come into place. To eliminate such a system, we need to adopt a new election system and eliminate the Electoral College.

We didn't make a joke out of third parties. The voting system in place made it so that we are cautious of voting for third parties, in fear that our votes will take away votes for the party we could at least agree with on some points, allowing the party we disagree with to win (i.e. voting for Democrats even when you aren't one, simply because you agree with them more than Republicans). That's not our fault.

Except many politicians that come into office can be people who are relatively unknown, where we have no idea if they would break any promises or not. In an instance like that you should stop blaming the people and start holding the actual politician accountable.

Quote: CAV

I swear it's like Bob does whatever it takes to blame the people and not the leader(s) who make the mistakes.

Quote: Mrmorrises

How would conservatives take us backwards? It really does depend on what your idea of "backwards" is.

But whenever I think of Obama and "progress" I think of a country dominated by a government that has more power than the Constitution entitles it to, a place where illegal immigrants run rampant, committing crimes, and a bunch of people on welfare for generations. That doesn't sound like forward to me.

Well if you think the right direction is super strict immigration processes (in a nation that always claimed to be open for all) and no government assistance to people who got ****ed by the capitalist economy, then yeah I do think that's a step in the wrong direction, and is heading backwards.

Quote: UncleBob

A.) Stop electing people who are obviously going to break their promises.
B.) Elect someone who will put laws in place that will hold politicians accountable when they break their promises.

A. There's no way to tell if someone is lying or not.
B. Nobody put in an office of power in today's world would limit their own power (at least not in these United States).

Quote: UncleBob

You do realize how our system is set up to work, right? The best candidates come forward and the people vote for who they think can do the best job.

We the People have allowed the process to get so mucked up with the two-party system that they can run virtually the same exact candidates against each other, it's obvious that neither one of them are fit or qualified for the position and yet, we will still give the position to one of them because we've made third parties a joke in this country.

When you vote for a politician who *already* has a record of breaking his promises, then you shouldn't be surprised when he continues that record.

The two party system did not come about because we the people made it that way. It came about because the First Past the Post election system we have in place is inherently flawed and allows for a two party system to come into place. To eliminate such a system, we need to adopt a new election system and eliminate the Electoral College.

We didn't make a joke out of third parties. The voting system in place made it so that we are cautious of voting for third parties, in fear that our votes will take away votes for the party we could at least agree with on some points, allowing the party we disagree with to win (i.e. voting for Democrats even when you aren't one, simply because you agree with them more than Republicans). That's not our fault.

Except many politicians that come into office can be people who are relatively unknown, where we have no idea if they would break any promises or not. In an instance like that you should stop blaming the people and start holding the actual politician accountable.

Um....except this immigration that me and my fellow conservatives show disdain for is illegal immigration. If you're going to blatantly disregard and disrespect our laws for your own selfish needs, then we don't want you here. And who says that all of these lower class people are poor victims of society who got screwed by Capitalism? Maybe some of them are lazy folks who don't want to get their asses spoiled on welfare, like this typical liberal:

Quote: Mrmorrises

Um....except this immigration that me and my fellow conservatives show disdain for is illegal immigration. If you're going to blatantly disregard and disrespect our laws for your own selfish needs, then we don't want you here. And who says that all of these lower class people are poor victims of society who got screwed by Capitalism? Maybe some of them are lazy folks who don't want to get their asses spoiled on welfare, like this typical liberal:

Yes illegal immigration is bad. But the problem is that the laws to getting into the country are pathetically strict. And if somebody does get in the country through illegal means, but is contributing to society and the economy through working hard, why should we kick them out rather than help them through the process of getting legal citizenship? Not every illegal immigrant is a criminal.

No, not every person on welfare or food stamps got screwed by the economy and the job market. But the majority have. And what you guys propose isn't to stop providing benefits to the lazy, but to stop providing benefits to everyone that actually needs it. If you have a plan to help those who work or can't work and need the money while blocking out the lazy, I'm all ears and fully support your cause. But right now the plan conservatives have is to cut benefits out entirely and simply tell people "get a job" even if they have one that doesn't pay enough.