Take this political test
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
SnowMongoose said:
FDR’s New Deal did little to solve the problems of the country. It did substantially more damage than good in the long run. Under the guise of providing quick relief to some of the people affected by the great depression, the New Deal was overall a very anti-liberty styled socialist plan.
FDR's administration and legislation was a very large step towards the destruction of our Contsitutional Republic and a movement (that continues today) towards a Federalistic anti-capitalistic American point of view.
You can thank FDR for the start of deficit spending, and opening the doors to the massive debt this country now owes.
Aside from decimating the U.S. economy through government intervention, and the wholesale destruction of American freedom, he's also responsible for lying to the American people about their so-called interests in World War II. (That's a topic for an enitire different post....)
His legacy to this day continues to destroy wealth, prevent growth, and due to the elitist liberals, will continue to so.
Great president? Yea, right...
My shock at the question was more related to feelings about Ronnie than my hanging from FDR's nuts.
The test is more an indicator of which main political party more closely matches your views. The DNC has successfully hid from many voters what they really stand for, and misrepresnted conservatives.
Of course it leaves out 3rd and 4th party candidates.
Yep, that is what I was intially getting at. I don't know a conservative that thinks we can defeat crime by building more prisons. And the liberal answer of give them money is wrong too, but that is how they proposed it. In a way, not the DNC way, rebuilding those cities is the right answer. From their individual communities and accepting responsibility for their actions.
And I don't pay money to watch the owners. I pay money to watch Ray Lewis and LeBron James.
I forget my two other "liberal scores".
No, read the bottom of the page. It tells you who wrote. It was a joint test. It is a very reasonable test, but not 100%.
You sound confused. People in the teens do not support term limits. The people of Massachussetts will vote for Ted Kennedy until he dies, hurting the country in progress.
Of course it leaves out 3rd and 4th party candidates.
Yep, that is what I was intially getting at. I don't know a conservative that thinks we can defeat crime by building more prisons. And the liberal answer of give them money is wrong too, but that is how they proposed it. In a way, not the DNC way, rebuilding those cities is the right answer. From their individual communities and accepting responsibility for their actions.
And I don't pay money to watch the owners. I pay money to watch Ray Lewis and LeBron James.
I forget my two other "liberal scores".
No, read the bottom of the page. It tells you who wrote. It was a joint test. It is a very reasonable test, but not 100%.
You sound confused. People in the teens do not support term limits. The people of Massachussetts will vote for Ted Kennedy until he dies, hurting the country in progress.
Yeah, politics sucks, and so do compromises to get your bills passed.
Adjuster
Supramania Contributor
I still think limiting voting to people who own their own houses/land and the military is the right way to approach it.
(Ok, buying your own home, but your paying taxes on that home/land.)
And you have to be either in the military, or out with honor to get voting rights. Get kicked out and you can't vote unless you own land.
Makes it very simple really. If you have shown that you seriously have a stake in this country, you get to vote.
No convicts voting.
No Aliens voting. (Not from Mars... LOL)
No Teenagers voting. (Unless they are in the military.)
I know you guys hate this idea, but it really is where we started, and we have screwed up letting everyone vote just because they exist. The only entry fee is either land or service. Either one will get you in the door. (Regardless of age, race, sex or any other factor.)
Married couples can both vote if they own land together.
Condo's count.
So do apartments and lofts/flats whatever as long as you are paying a mortgage and it's "yours". (Shows you care about your country to buy a part of it and put down roots, at least in my opinion.)
I don't care who you are, if you buy part of this land, or serve in the military, you have earned the right to vote in my opinion.
Ok, end of hyjack
(Ok, buying your own home, but your paying taxes on that home/land.)
And you have to be either in the military, or out with honor to get voting rights. Get kicked out and you can't vote unless you own land.
Makes it very simple really. If you have shown that you seriously have a stake in this country, you get to vote.
No convicts voting.
No Aliens voting. (Not from Mars... LOL)
No Teenagers voting. (Unless they are in the military.)
I know you guys hate this idea, but it really is where we started, and we have screwed up letting everyone vote just because they exist. The only entry fee is either land or service. Either one will get you in the door. (Regardless of age, race, sex or any other factor.)
Married couples can both vote if they own land together.
Condo's count.
So do apartments and lofts/flats whatever as long as you are paying a mortgage and it's "yours". (Shows you care about your country to buy a part of it and put down roots, at least in my opinion.)
I don't care who you are, if you buy part of this land, or serve in the military, you have earned the right to vote in my opinion.
Ok, end of hyjack
Nick M said:
The FOPA wasn't some rider or "tack on" placed by the dems in exchange for the repubs getting one of their riders though. It was Ronald and every Republican congressman saying a loud "Fuck you!" to our constitution. It completely revised the 34 NFA and flew in the face of 7 SCOTUS decisions since then.
By no means was it a political play in exchange for something else, 86 was huge.
I'm with you, IJ - got a 20 here.
Personally, I like to take a little from both sides of the fence. Neither extreme helps a damn soul, and somewhere in the middle is the art of compromise.
Personally, I like to take a little from both sides of the fence. Neither extreme helps a damn soul, and somewhere in the middle is the art of compromise.
We all know how you feel but it will never happen Greg. It has been ruled "Unconstitutional" and even then, I really doubt the homeless street people will make it to the polls anyways.
I did not like the "more prisons" answer either. I think we need tougher penalties. If cops shot people who ran from them (even in the leg to slow their dumb asses down) there would be less people willing to run from the cops in the fist place. (common sense)
3 strikes and your out, I disagree,,, I say 1 strike and 1 appeal. if it does not work in your favor, then your done...game over.... All the lawers suck and the laws are written poorly also.
No child raper deseves to have the best lawer just because he/she has money to spend on a great defense..... Appoint him/her the dumbest fucking lawer on the planet!!!!
Why make them MORE new comfy homes/prisons for people who can't play by the rules?? 3 hots and a cot? LMAO, these guys eat better than I do I bet.. Make them fix the roads, build schools, make candles for all I care.. Teach them if needed. Kill them if they don't learn quickly..
It's all just like a game of chess guys.. (what happends if I do this and then that?? And then what happends???) Everyone should learn to play, imo.. :biglaugh:
Edit: DrUnK pOsTs... FtW
Yeah, I was pretty wasted when I said that. That is why I only drink once or twice a year...
LMAO... just kiddin.. I stand by most of it, even sober..
LMAO... just kiddin.. I stand by most of it, even sober..
