Starman for President
- Thread starter Starman
- Start date
No, it's not, certainly not Bush and his administration's idea. They have not created flat rate (everyone pays the same percentage) in USA, they have created a system where the poor pays the most tax, and the rich pays the least, and when his next "tax cuts" come, the rich will get even lower tax, but the poor are not affected by it.
Could you elaborate?
Why, you do not like civil liberties and equal rights for everyone, disregarding of race, gender, age or religion?
I understand fully what you mean, but one has to get into the politics to be able to change it to what you think are better, no matter if you are a Conservative or Liberal. The corruption and that they more and more forget how the "Average Joe (or Jane)" the more powerful they get, is a big problem. We need people who try their very best to stay grounded, never forgetting where they may come from, and never forgetting that there are people that may not be doing as well in life as they are. Strong willed people who doesn't let themselves get corrupted, and make political decisions based on their own monetary or power gain.
Yes, I can't see them ever changing that natural-born citizen law in any present future. Will probably take many decades before they may do it. But one should never, I repeat never, abandon hope, because if you do, then you've done just what those in power wants. Helping them secure their positions of power in society.Originally posted by parker
Good luck. I can't see them ever changing the natural-born cirzen law however. If they do, then all that's left for you to do is raise 3 or 4 hundred million dollars from rich corporations who won't expect anything in return for their contributions.... yeah they just like giving that money out of the kindest of their hearts.Um, that might be even tougher to pull off then getting the law changed. But it's nice to be optimismic.
Clarification (because sloppy reading or sloppy writing, or a combination, I do not know?):
I've now heard the Conservatives talking about "sweet tree huggers" and how the country would be run over, and over-taken, by terrorists and militant groups, if the Liberals/Democrats ever got in power again.
Do everyone really honestly believe that? If not, please vote "Yes" in this thread. And my text here is, as I've stated in the text, and several times in this thread, a hypothetical "What If?" scenario.
It's "What if?" the laws where changed, and I could run for president in at least 14 years from now, would you support me, or the Conservatives?
I've also stated in the text that I do not expect to be able to get all those things through as a president, but also sitting in other positions in the politcal hierarchy during my lifetime, both before and after my precidency.
I've wrote it together, to see if civil liberties, equal rights, education and social welfare is something important.
To see if people connect civil liberties and equal rights with something "evil", as the Conservatives wants to depict it, or if there are people who actually thinks it's something fair and reasonable.
I've now heard the Conservatives talking about "sweet tree huggers" and how the country would be run over, and over-taken, by terrorists and militant groups, if the Liberals/Democrats ever got in power again.
Do everyone really honestly believe that? If not, please vote "Yes" in this thread. And my text here is, as I've stated in the text, and several times in this thread, a hypothetical "What If?" scenario.
It's "What if?" the laws where changed, and I could run for president in at least 14 years from now, would you support me, or the Conservatives?
I've also stated in the text that I do not expect to be able to get all those things through as a president, but also sitting in other positions in the politcal hierarchy during my lifetime, both before and after my precidency.
I've wrote it together, to see if civil liberties, equal rights, education and social welfare is something important.
To see if people connect civil liberties and equal rights with something "evil", as the Conservatives wants to depict it, or if there are people who actually thinks it's something fair and reasonable.
parker said:Good luck. I can't see them ever changing the natural-born cirzen law however. If they do, then all that's left for you to do is raise 3 or 4 hundred million dollars from rich corporations who won't expect anything in return for their contributions.... yeah they just like giving that money out of the kindest of their hearts.
I personally can see them changing it or at least altering it for Arnold! The man has a will, charisma, and personality like no other and even though I dont agree with him on several issues I still Might vote for the guy if he ran for president! It's for the reason that the guy could pull in a lot of liberal votes, even though he's a republican, that the republican party might spearhead a campaign to change or alter the law! :2 cents:
Dirty Sanchez said:
I was just pointing out that we both do it so dont jump on our backs for doing it when you do the same thing!
You know, Bush hasnt gotten the job done either! Afterall where is Osama? We sure dont have him and he's still out there somewhere!
And he's said on numerous occasions that that was the biggest mistake he made during his presidency! Did you hear that!? Clinton admitted he made a mistake but you dont hear anything like that coming from Bush do you!? Bush has never admitted that he's been wrong or that he's made a mistake and we both know that he's been wrong on a lot of things but he wont admit it because according to his administration he's perfect! But if he's perfect then he must be god! Why not you conservatives already think he's god so lets change his policies to that of the bible and make it official!
Using scare tactics in a movie is a far cry from using them as your policy like the Bush administration does!
Yes, I agree here. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a guy that although he is a Republican, he sounds like a Democrat when he opens his mouth. He might have my vote too. (And before you Conservatives start blabbing about that I wouldn't have the right to vote. Last time I checked, if changing citizenship, one does also receive a right to vote. Geez, some people just search for faults... *sigh*)Brino said:
member5726
Banned
Wow, i'm suprised... when i write this message 12 of 22 persons vote against Starman... so they are voting against the Constitution for human rights... man now i know why the US is going down the drain... americans are really stupid...
Rights are democratic because they are limits to arbitrary authority, and people who believe they have rights cannot be subjected to conservatism.
Conservative rhetors have attacked the rights revolution in numerous ways as a kind of demotic chatter that contradicts the eternal wisdom of the conservative order. For conservatism, not accepting one's settled place in the traditional hierarchy of orders and classes is a kind of arrogance. Institutions, for conservatism, are more important than people.
But rights it is not enough. A society is not founded on rights alone. Democracy requires that people learn and practice a range of nontrivial social skills. But then people are not likely to learn or practice those skills so long as they have internalized a conservative psychology of deference. The rights revolution breaks this cycle. For the civil rights movement, for example, learning to read was not simply a means of registering to vote, but was also a means of liberation from the psychology of conservatism. Democratic institutions, as opposed to the inherited mysteries of conservative institutions, are made of the everyday exercise of advanced social skills by people who are liberated in this sense.
Conservative rhetors have attacked the rights revolution in numerous ways as a kind of demotic chatter that contradicts the eternal wisdom of the conservative order. For conservatism, not accepting one's settled place in the traditional hierarchy of orders and classes is a kind of arrogance. Institutions, for conservatism, are more important than people.
But rights it is not enough. A society is not founded on rights alone. Democracy requires that people learn and practice a range of nontrivial social skills. But then people are not likely to learn or practice those skills so long as they have internalized a conservative psychology of deference. The rights revolution breaks this cycle. For the civil rights movement, for example, learning to read was not simply a means of registering to vote, but was also a means of liberation from the psychology of conservatism. Democratic institutions, as opposed to the inherited mysteries of conservative institutions, are made of the everyday exercise of advanced social skills by people who are liberated in this sense.
Last edited:
