Printable View
I actually have no garbage collection where i live and we do just fine. Potholes... hell they don't do that now.. just get a 4x4 and watch where you are going. Spammers... get a filter. Printing money.. just barter.Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalists
Yes, limited FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. the states can pick up the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by indivision
Gasp, I also believe that the military needs a total restructureing and we need to bring back the draft. The president has no more right to be the commander in chief of the military than I do. It really needs to be under the control of the congress. To put that kind of power in one mans hands is just asking for the worst to happen.
You'd rather have it in the hands of the beauracracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
Down sides to each, I guess.
Where was this guy in the Katrina thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
;)
Except of corse FEMA and hurricanes right?Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
Putting it in the hands of congress isn't going to do a damn bit of good if they just turn it over to the presQuote:
It really needs to be under the control of the congress. To put that kind of power in one mans hands is just asking for the worst to happen.
FEMA and hurricanes comes under fixing pot holes.
Putting it under the congress also takes it out of the hands of megalomaniac presidents who don't know or have forgotten that a strong military is not to be used for their personal agenda but to threaten retaliation.
There's no doubt we need a strong military. It's historical fact that if you don't have a strong army within your borders, you'll have someone elses strong army within your borders.
And to help when there's a hurricane. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
Yes, why not? Better to put them to work doing something.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
Would be a good job for the newbies of a new draft policy. Everyone should have to serve 1 year, man and woman. Those who elect to stay in after 1 year will make up the fighting standing army.
does the president already need congressional approval to declare war? or did he do that the last time on his own volition?
Yes, but he's not supposed to lie about the facts to convince them.
congress saw the same intelligence. so, if we were a commander-in-chief by committee country, we would seemingly have made the same action.
I seriously doubt anyone in congress saw the same intel the shrub did. If they did, they were republicans and we should hang them with the same rope.
wait a minute. now you're saying that you no longer support removing Saddam Hussein?
Now come on iaskwhy.....the wacko enviromentalists are all flaming liberals....it isnt the price of oil....but the cost of "clean air" that makes gas so damned expensiveQuote:
To really find out how stupid they are, give them a choice of $3 per gallon or $1 per gallon, not a map where Australia is labelled as North and South Korea. Maybe they were bing nice to the dufus doing the poll?
Is the air cleaner? Or is the price of oil higher, thus gas, natural gas, et al higher?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paingod
Sorry. I just see the latter.
No. Absolutely not. But the way things were just a few years ago, I'm thinking he could have got the OK to do that without the lies. Which I am convinced, he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by indivision
I still support removal of SH. And the day he was captured should have been the signal for our withdrawl from Iraq.
What I am firmly against is rebuilding their nation so they can do it again in 10 or 20 years.
You can mostly blame it on the lack of refining capacity due to restrictions placed by environmental legislation.
Oh come on! Haven't you been watching the news?Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
What it is, is record breaking profits by all the major oil companies.
You have some points there.Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
I can imagine a better job of selling the action, provided we're assuming it was the right thing to do anyway. But, is that enough to condemn everything else about a man and anyone else in the same party as him out of hand?
Being against the rebuild is an interesting argument and one I haven't heard. If Bush had ordered everyone out right after capturing Saddam, I'm pretty sure it would have been even more controversial than what he has done. Am I off here?
Anyway, if Bush had just said we should remove Saddam because it was the right thing to do and then pulled out as soon as he was caught, he would have your approval?
The war in Iraq is hardly the only reason I hate the man. Add it all up and you'll hate him too.Quote:
I can imagine a better job of selling the action, provided we're assuming it was the right thing to do anyway. But, is that enough to condemn everything else about a man and anyone else in the same party as him out of hand?
1. Nearly 4 trillion in national debt since he took office with a surplus.
2. He DID lie about the intel.
3. His blatant scam with the SS dabacle a few months ago.
4. His games he's playing with old peoples lives, Medicare and Social Security.
5. Katrina mishandling.
6. The fact that he is using his republican majority to bull through unpopular bills. Like the free trade agreements he's so happy about.
7. I truely hate his Bevis and Buttass snicker. It's an affront to everyone.
8. Sending millions of good paying american jobs overseas and replacing them with burger flipping, low paying jobs or none at all.
9. Allowing low tarrifs for imported cars which ultimately sends american jobs and dollars to countries that economically if not politically are our enemies.
Maybe, but now, 2 years later, the controversy would be over with. And think of this, what if his "real" main reason for starting the war in Iraq had nothing to do with being stupid, WMD, oil or getting SH? What if the real reason was because he knew his chances were extraordinarily better to get 4 more years if the country was hating muslims and Iraqi's, rather than his stupid and costly boondoggle swindles he's still trying to push through?Quote:
If Bush had ordered everyone out right after capturing Saddam, I'm pretty sure it would have been even more controversial than what he has done. Am I off here?
No. But he would have one less item of disapproval from me.Quote:
Anyway, if Bush had just said we should remove Saddam because it was the right thing to do and then pulled out as soon as he was caught, he would have your approval?