Page 3 of 8
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:52 pmby JoeTerp
Sabre wrote:JoeTerp wrote:I will Vote for Ron Paul if he runs as an Independent or as a Libertarian, if he doesn't run, I will vote for McCain. I just hope that a Dem doesn't win, Universal health care sounds like the worst thing ever, would not work in this country, and it goes against everything the constitution stands for
Please explain why universal health care wouldn't work in your opinion... want to see your view.
this link sums up the basics pretty well
the main reasons for me is that it would be unconstitutional, and I do not think it would be run efficiently
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:54 pmby metalhead
I don't trust McCain, I'll be cautious about what he brings in the international front if he became president, especially middle eastern affairs(which would interest me highly because I live in the middle east).
I would like to see Obama win it, I think he has a chance and he is a very charismatic person. Plus, I admire his attitudes toward his own ideas.
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:55 pmby metalhead
JoeTerp wrote:and If Mitt Romney actually believed in the Book of Mormon I would be scared of him too but I think in his heart he has to KNOW its a load of cr@p so he isn't toooo bad.
He is a mormon though. He scares the sh!t out of me though 
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:57 pmby taff
JoeTerp wrote:Sabre wrote:JoeTerp wrote:I will Vote for Ron Paul if he runs as an Independent or as a Libertarian, if he doesn't run, I will vote for McCain. I just hope that a Dem doesn't win, Universal health care sounds like the worst thing ever, would not work in this country, and it goes against everything the constitution stands for
Please explain why universal health care wouldn't work in your opinion... want to see your view.
this link sums up the basics pretty well
the main reasons for me is that it would be unconstitutional, and I do not think it would be run efficiently
Plasma was invented by a black doctor who ironically bled to death because the hospital in America wouldnt treat a black man
I think thats unconstitutional to be honest.
Try getting rid of guns and you might have less people to treat
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:04 pmby JoeTerp
yes that would be unconstitutional today, but I think unfortunately, I think at that time there was this retarded interpretation of the law that meant "separate BUT equal" meaning its legal to segregate hospitals, restuarants and public schools as long as they are equal, but luckily we have since found our way and realized that separate by law cannot mean equal. And I am sure that if we looked deep into any country's history you are going to find a LOT of pretty terrible things happening to people for no good reason.
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:10 pmby metalhead
JoeTerp wrote:yes that would be unconstitutional today, but I think unfortunately, I think at that time there was this retarded interpretation of the law that meant "separate BUT equal" meaning its legal to segregate hospitals, restuarants and public schools as long as they are equal, but luckily we have since found our way and realized that separate by law cannot mean equal. And I am sure that if we looked deep into any country's history you are going to find a LOT of pretty terrible things happening to people for no good reason.
Joe
the "guns" issue in the U.S, do you think the next president of the U.S (depending on which president ofcourse) would try to be stricter on rules on guns?
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:12 pmby LFC2007
metalhead wrote:JoeTerp wrote:yes that would be unconstitutional today, but I think unfortunately, I think at that time there was this retarded interpretation of the law that meant "separate BUT equal" meaning its legal to segregate hospitals, restuarants and public schools as long as they are equal, but luckily we have since found our way and realized that separate by law cannot mean equal. And I am sure that if we looked deep into any country's history you are going to find a LOT of pretty terrible things happening to people for no good reason.
Joe
the "guns" issue in the U.S, do you think the next president of the U.S (depending on which president ofcourse) would try to be stricter on rules on guns?
You've answered your own question;
It depends on who is elected.
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:16 pmby JoeTerp
Well although McCain is a "republican" he isn't as Trigger Happy as some of the other names that were in the Rebuplican hat, wouldn't be surprised if he didn't veto a bill that came through about guns, but Bush has put in some real conservative judges (and they serve till they die) and I am not sure if they would say that any law restricting gun owners in the US was unconstitutional or not.
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:31 pmby taff
Joe
What do you think the priorities would be for the US, sort out Iraq or domestic issues
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:41 pmby JoeTerp
avoiding recession.
McCain wants to "give the soldiers a chance to win the war"
the Dems want to get out fairly quickly after they are elected and pull out slowly over a period of 12-18 months
Obama has been quoted as saying, "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war."
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:09 amby metalhead
JoeTerp wrote:McCain wants to "give the soldiers a chance to win the war"
Thats why I don't trust him
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:20 amby LFC2007
JoeTerp wrote:Well although McCain is a "republican" he isn't as Trigger Happy as some of the other names that were in the Rebuplican hat, wouldn't be surprised if he didn't veto a bill that came through about guns, but Bush has put in some real conservative judges (and they serve till they die) and I am not sure if they would say that any law restricting gun owners in the US was unconstitutional or not.
It's highly unlikely that firearms regulations in the U.S. will ever be tightened to anything like the degree you see in Western Europe for the foreseeable future, and if they are, they'll likely be challenged in court - if necessary the Supreme Court. Recent case law on the matter confirms this in Parker v D.C., and although an appeal is pending in the Supreme court, I think you'll find they'll uphold the original verdict given that most of the court's constituent justices were either appointed by Bush, or Reagan. It'll be closer than what that fact alone would suggest, but still, I can see them upholding the original decision. The pro-gun lobby across there is a robust and defiant one to boot, they involve themselves in support of upholding the 'true meaning' of the second amendment in virtually every bit of significant litigation that passes through the courts.
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:45 amby zarababe
I hope Hicks gets in !
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:11 amby hello_red
Obama will win and then get shot dead by a ''nutter''.
Im all for the left coming out on top.
The right can suck my dick.
The war on terror needs to be sorted out, not so much a war more a case in how not to go about stopping 'Islamic extremists'.
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:54 amby JoeTerp
After today its looking more and more like Clinton and McCain, but don't hold me to it, and I really could not see someone getting close to killing any of the candidates considering the amount of security each have and all the precautions they must take