Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/2/09 08:05 AM, Kazuhiro wrote:

A die-hard, level-headed, conservative with a real sense of what mattered.

Yeah! What matters! Like teaching creationism and abstinence-only in schools! You brainwashed born-again.

Neither of which is a bad idea. Creationism, with its pseudo-religious undertones and lack of scientific proof, is as viable a theory as the mathematically impossible Evolutionary Theory, and it gives the youth of America an alternative to being spoon-fed a theory that has magically become 'fact' while being called a 'theory'. Personally, I don't know which is worse.

Abstinence is also a smart idea if your trying to completely avoid things like pregnancy (teen or otherwise), STDs, AIDS, and unwanted drama involving exgfs/bfs (whichever your preference, I don't judge).

And I forgive you for calling me brain-washed.

Large and small are relative terms. Bigger or smaller than what? This becomes especially important in American government since our's is divided into at least two levels: Federal and State (Three if you count Local). The question then is, which level should be bigger e.g. have more power? Right now, the Federal level holds the most power. This is backwards in my opinion. The 10th Amendment clearly delegates the largest chunk of political power to the states, rather than the feds. In fact, the Constitution states places the strictest limits on federal power. There is actually next to no limits on State power outside the universal Bill of Rights protections.

In short, I would like to see more state, less fed.

I personally object to gay marriage. However, I really don't care whether or not its legalized, so long as the issue continues to be handled at the state government / referendum level. That's where these decisions should be made. If the feds try to make it a federal issue, however, I don't care if their pushing for or against it, I'd be against them on the principle of state's rights alone.

At 11/24/09 10:37 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Sarah Palin. That was all the reason I needed not to vote Republican.

Sarah Palin, actually, was all the reason I needed TO vote Republican. Sure, McCain was an old man who tended to be more centrist on most issues, but Palin? Pft. No question where she stood. A die-hard, level-headed, conservative with a real sense of what mattered. Personally, I hope she comes back to run for the presidency. If her platform's the same, she'll get my vote hands down.

:Obama...

:--Wheres the BIPARTISANSHIP you promised? One Republican voted for the Health Care bill. And in :your first private meeting with Congressional Republicans, instead of reaching across the aisle, you :said, "I won."

While Bipartisanship would be a noble thing to strive towards, it is, in its nature, counter-productive. The two parties are far too introverted and stubborn to even consider any real concessions or compromises. Obama's loyalty to Leftist ideals inherently makes any joint effort a worthless expenditure of hot air, as the Right wing doesn't believe those ideals are beneficial to the nation. Congress unites only in times of crisis, and then only until the initial shock is past. Broken promise? Yes. Wise Promise? No

:--Where is our promised government transparency? The Healthcare bill is 1990 pages of legal :jargon.

Legal jargon is the official language of Washington. That won't ever change. Also, gov't transparency is finicky thing. There are parts of government that I believe should not be made public and are not necessary for the average citizen to know. However, the people do have a right to know what bills are going through congress so they can make informed decisions and write/e-mail/call/text/whatever their congressmen in support of or opposition to the bills. Back-room meetings and forced votes accomplish nothing except undermining the democratic process this nation is founded on, and Obama just looked the other way. Broken Promise? Yes. Effort made? No.

:--Why isn't our deficit being cut in half like promised? Your first year adds $1.75 trillion, with trillions :more through 2012.

While it takes a lot of money to maintain a country, dropping trillions like hot potatoes is inexcusable. My hard-earned money goes back to the government in the form of taxes so the the government can pay the salaries of the men and women who work for it and the Airmen, Sailors, Soldiers, Marines, and Coast Guards who defend us; and to purchase the equipment and fund research that will make our nation more secure. What's left over from that is extra to invest in improving our nation in other ways, like alternative fuel. In my opinion, deficit spending is acceptable only in times of war to provide the grease for the gears. Bailouts? Pet projects? Buying private businesses? Even the healthcare bill is unnecessary. Just allow healthcare to operate on an open market system, and competition will drive the prices down, guaranteed. Promise Broken? Yes. Increased taxes for the next few generations? Yes.

:--Why didn't your $800 billion stimulus keep unemployment under 8.5% as was promised? Its now :10.2%

Like the above, throwing money at something does nothing but obscure your vision. The problem doesn't go away, it just hides behind the greenbacks. Capitalism works because it revolves around greed: the greed of the consumer/employee vs. the greed of the producer/employer. Both sides are trying to make the most they can off the other, and in the process, the price of a comodity or value of a job balances out. Sometimes one side is winning over the other, but in the long run, the value averages out. When you interfere with the process by artificially tipping the scales in favor of one side or the other, it takes that much longer for the numbers to balance out again. Broken Promise? Yes. Right course of action? No.

:--Why didn't you publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days before the you :sign it like you promised?

Not much to say here. He just didn't. Broken Promise? Yes. Secretary updating website? No.

:--Why didn't you recognize the Armenian Genocide, like you promised?

Well... I'll give him some time on this one. Not saying it's not important or couldn't have been dealt with already, but we can't expect too much from him too soon. He seems to have a selective memory. Promise Broken? Maybe. Any Progress? No.

:--Why didn't you stop the practice of "signing statements" like you promised?

I am personally unfamiliar with this topic, so I'm not going to comment on it.

:--Why didn't you adopt a dog from the shelter like you promised? Instead you bought a purebred.

Seems to be a rather petty complaint, but fits the broken promise theme, I suppose. Broken Promise? Yes. Do I care? No

:--Why didn't you stop Federal funding for religious organizations like you promised?

Hmm. The only federal involvement in religion that I was aware of was tax exemption status. If there is any other "funding", I am against it. However, I am personally unfamiliar with the details of this topic, so I'm not going to comment on it.

:--Why didn't you stop CIA renditions like you promised?

I am personally unfamiliar with this topic, so I'm not going to comment on it.

:--Why didn't you give the $4000 credit for college tuition that you promised?

While certainly a noble gesture and no doubt would be appreciated by the academic community, that credit can total up to quite a large chunk of change nation-wide. Perhaps it would have worked better if it wasn't for the trillions in frivolous spending. Promise Broken? Yes. Funding available? No

:--Where is your responsible government that you promised? Annette Nazareth, Nancy Killefer, Tim Geithne, and Tom Daschle who you nominated or appointed all had tax evasion issues.

Didn't you know? He comes from Illinois' corrupt Chicago-style politics. Anyone he knows in the biz is likely to have some rather dark marks on their record. (I lived in Chicago, so I know what I'm saying) Promise Broken? Yes. Any chance from the start? No.

:--Why didn't you stop the government fear tactics like you promised? You used them on the Swine :Flu and the Stimulus Bill.

Yeah, I didn't appreciate being referred to as part of a "mob" and then encouraged to tattle on anyone who didn't like his plans. I thought it was illegal for the White House to receive and/or keep information on private citizens. But when has "illegal" meant anything in this nation. Promise Broken? Yes. Laws ignored? Yes.

Whether or not the story is fictional, it does make a valid point. An apologetic approach to race relations is being proliferated throughout the caucasian community; an approach that is supported by many outspoken members of both the caucasian and the various racial minorities. Any attempt to point out the mindset's racist nature is harshly shot down and is in turn called 'racist'.

I am proud to say I whole-heartedly support the equal rights of men and women of all races and walks of life. However, I must emphasize my use of 'equal'. 'Equal Rights' means that no advantage or favoritism is given in any way regardless of race, gender, creed, or status; that anything available to one is available to another. Sadly, this is far from the truth.

The fact is that, if I were any other race, I would be insulted by how whites seem to think that the minorities need help to be equal. I would be angry at my own race for supporting such policies. As a white, middle-class, male, I am insulted and angry at my own race for believing it is inferior to all other races and going out of our way to elevate them above us. I believe we are equal, not greater or weaker, and any policies that try to "make people equal" is in fact doing the opposite and only perpetuating racism under a new guise.

Why is it always Science VS Religion? The two are not mutually exclusive. I love science and seeking to understand the laws that govern the universe, but at the same time, I have my religious beliefs. Learning the mechanics of the universe actually helps me appreciate my religion even more. For example, I'm currently reading up on Nassim Haramein's unified field theory, which I find to be very logical and could be a huge leap forward in our understanding of the universe.

On the other hand, there are many who pursue science religiously; that is, their religion is science. It's not usually thought about that way, but in a very real sense, the pursuit of scientific knowledge can be considered a form of universe-worship, seeking to be closer to the understanding the universe the way some seek to be closer to their deity.

Simply put, Religion and Science are not on opposite ends of a spectrum, but two ideas that can be seamlessly integrated with each-other.

I think there's some confusion as to the context of 'minority' here. In this case, I believe FUNKbrs was referring to the ideological minority, and not necessarily the racial minority; though the two can often be related. In this, I agree; the policies of any nation should not be dictated by vocal minorities, but by the civil majority. The problem is that infamous, oxymoronic catchphrase, 'Politically Correct'. It is 'politically incorrect' to ignore the minority, even at the expense of the majority. Such thought is not noble or philanthropic, but foolish and stupid. This is not to say that the minority is in any way second rate or unimportant, only that the needs of the majority must take priority; especially in instances where the interests of the minority would jeopardize the well-being of the majority. It is common sense, which is unfortunately not a common virtue.

In the end, I believe the core issue with the problems in the American political scene has very little to do with parties / party lines / bi-partisanship / [insert party-related term here] etc., but rather with the mindset of the incumbent politicians in Washington, regardless of political affiliation, and a blatant disregard for the nation's laws. Parties are the inevitable result of human nature. The 'birds of a feather' mentality will always lead people to organize and identify themselves as members of a certain school, belief, or demographic. This is not a bad thing. Parties provide clearly defined choices and help smooth the electoral process with their internal infrastructures.

The issue lies with the shared aristocratic and egotistical nature of those who now sit in Washington, claiming to act on the people's behalf. They seem to have some strange sense of entitlement to their positions. They are so self-centered and focused on their own agendas and pet-projects, they fail to listen to the people they represent and blatantly disregard the laws that bind their actions as set forth in the Constitution.

To these people, the Constitution is a tedious, antiquated, and inconvenient document they would rather sweep under the rug and forget about. They do this because they know that any honest man can read the Constitution and see how far the Federal Government has strayed from it. It lays out a very strict list of powers that Feds can wield and leaves no room to expand on them without a full amendment. In fact, any powers not granted to the federal-level are automatically state-level powers and cannot be infringed upon by federal government.

This fact alone calls into question legislation that has been passed through Congress in the last few decades, including setting national smoking and drinking ages, and the current administration's recent attempts at enforcing nation-wide medical insurance standard. Such legislation is unconstitutional and should never even become the subject of debate. Each individual State has the power to legislate its own requirements, and by Constitutional law, such actions are legal. Other controversial issues such as gay rights, legalization of marijuana, and abortion also fall under state - not federal- jurisdiction.

In short, the Federal govenment has been slowly eating up state's rights without the consent of the sates via the proper amendment process, pulling the important decisions out of the peoples' grasp and into their power-hungry claws. This trend will not change until we put men and women in Washington who understand and embrace both the powers and limits of the Constitution, and whose true motives are to listen to and serve the people who sent them. Only then will there be the United States of America, and not the Federated Provinces of Washington D.C..