Jump to content

William_Stokes

Member
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

William_Stokes last won the day on October 26 2007

William_Stokes had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About William_Stokes

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 07/17/1992

Profile Information

  • Name
    Da Head
  • School
    City college
  • Location
    Maryland
  1. I would think that you could spell HER name correctly considering she is your girlfriend...
  2. yeah, you spelled Jasmine wrong
  3. I think that if Hillary gets to the General she will lose
  4. This might be the most off topic conversation I have ever seen
  5. There are a lot of polls about WHO people are voting for, but not who will be in the national election. I predict that it is going to be Huckabee (my gut tells me McCain but my head tells me Huck) Obama (Unless Hillary actually carries out sucsessful negitive attacks, then John Edwards won't win. Hillary won't be able to soften her apperence either)
  6. And without Mike Gravel's idiot idea of direct democracy.
  7. Small goverment. Little to no taxes. Goverment doesn't intervene in the free market. That was exactly how the guilded age was. Locke said the purpose of goverment was to protect the rights of citizens. Ron Paul thinks the goverment should stay out. He is not fufilling the main purpose of goverment. If you literally interpert the Constitution then the 2nd amendment says arms, not small arms. Under that you should be able to have whatever weapon you want. NCLB wasn't funded enough to work. Just because one inititive failed doesn't mean they all fail. That also still means that the states can't do it effectivly either 1) Even as you said that, you went on to try and refute what I said. If you don't want to argue, don't argue in the first place. 2) The states didn't do anything more to control the economy. The fact that ONE state hasn't been able to do anything means something. Also, EVERYONE should know that Bush is an absolute idiot when it comes to economics.
  8. True Right. Bringing things back to the guilded isn't a bad thing for the poor. The definition of rights is not leaving them out to dry and not giving everyone a fair shot and reinforcing the beliefs of Social Darwinism. What do you know! It's a match! In the days of the constitution, there were one-shot muskets that rule was made for militas. I don't feel safe if a random man(or woman you damn feminists) is carrying a rocket launcher or an anti-air craft gun down the streets. He thinks the state should decide. That means that there could be 50 states learning different things. That is just great. Supremacy clause. Nuff' said What I said before The government needs to control the economy. People are stupid, the goverment needs to protect them. Hobbs, Montisque, Locke, all of them said it
  9. If you think that it will fall in the near future then that is below 100 years. Yes, I didn't phrase the questen very well, but I think that it is not that vague. I think that people can easily insert there imputs on the stability of checks and balances. On your last point, I agree.
  10. I agree with your point on Statism. That is why I voted the way I did in the poll above. I absolutly hate political parties, but have decided to play the devil's advicate right here. Political infighting is what is supposed to be done. Our government works slow for a reason. Our Bicameral legislature and veto power makes it hard for a bill to get passed. But this also checks alot of the abuse of the system and makes sure that laws are agreed upon by all before being passed. On your last point, it is the lazy citizens who think that there vote doesn't matter and don't want to take the time out of there day that what you say is true. If citizens really cared, they would acctually come out to vote instead of staying at home and sitting on there fat asses
  11. 1) Party politics are all but unaviodible. 280 (though I may be mistaken) electoral votes are required to become striaght up winner in election. We don't have a run off, so the vote would go to congress to decide who should be president. It is all but impossible to avoid a to party system. However, the fact is that the people decide who should represent there party in the national election, which is where the the people are really able to elect anyone. Just saying to party politics doesn't mean anything because of the differing view inside the party. Both parties are a diverse group. 2) Corruption doesn't effect the system of checks and balances. 3) Don't you mean we are moving away from Federalism? If you don't, why is that a bad thing?
  12. I agree. But the whole concept of checks and balances is that one branch may become more powerful then another at some points, but it will always swing back. Congress is not going to let that power stay in the hands of the excutive branch.
×
×
  • Create New...