Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Sep 02, 2014 at 09:21 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Smartest thing she's said yet  (Read 2774 times)
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1270
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,471



« Reply #20 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 14:09 »

Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Vinman.

Just a little about their government, which is a superficial democracy(republic) controlled by a theocracy. When the US backed Shah was overthrown in 1979, we all know what happened. After Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power, it was declared The Islamic Republic of Iran, with the Shia version of Islam declared the official religion.

There is a Supreme Leader, a President and executive branch, a legislature and a judiciary branch.

 Now the Supreme Leader, and there have only been two- Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, and the current Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is responsible for the delineation and supervision "of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran" per their Constitution. The Supreme Leader is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations, and has the only power to declare war. He also appoints heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians. The Assembly of Experts elects, and has the power to dismiss, the Supreme Leader. Which of course has never happened. There are 86 clerics in the Assembly of Experts who vote, and candidates have to pass a written exam from the Council of Guardians. The CoG oversees what laws are allowed to be passed based on their interpretation of the Constitution. They also approve all candidates for national election. So, basically, the Supreme Leader is exactly that. In control of everything, and making policy. And only he can decide to go to war.

The President(Ahmadinejad) is elected by a national vote of 15 or older males. The Supreme Leader controlled CoG must approve all candidate's before running. The President is basically responsible for running the day to day operations of the country as per the Supreme Leader's policies. There are 10 vice-presidents.
Logged
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,192



« Reply #21 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 22:08 »

I don't like his stance on gun control. The second amendment to the Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, and he has consistently voted to restrict those rights. I am not a gun fanatic, in fact, I only own one 4-10 shotgun. However, the second amendment is one I strongly believe in for self protection, hunting, and legal uses. Gun control laws take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals, they will still find ways to get guns.

Now, let me quote the Second Amendment for you:
Quote
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, when we had no armed forces (when the Constitution was drafted) it was imperative that the People kept arms so that they may defend the country when called upon.  Most people forget those first 12 words. 
I do not need to keep an AK-47 by my side in case the British come up over the hill in the middle of the night.  I have a police force, and army, navy, air force, marines, national guard, to worry about those things for me.

I think it's asinine and uneducated to argue that the Second Amendment gives every man, woman and child the unequivocal right to own a gun.  It does not.  And Vinman, I do not mean to call you an ass, nor uneducated. 
I don't give a shit whether or not you have a gun for personal protection, hunting, or whatever.  But I fail to see how semi-automatic weapon ownership is your Constitutional right. 
And since the Supreme Court just this year affirmed the right of individuals to own guns, I also fail to see how the President, no matter who he or she is, can fundamentally restrict that right.

In other words, your 2nd Amendment fears are by and large unfounded.
I'd go into your other points, but it's been a long day.

So, you don't trust Obama or McCain, but you do trust Bob Barr? 

But I do love you Vinman, so I won't point and laugh.
 pointlaugh
OK, yes I will....
 eck02
 Wink

« Last Edit: Nov 01, 2008 at 22:20 by leighclay » Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,192



« Reply #22 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 08:41 »

Just one more thing, because I didn't mean that last post to be such a rant.
OK, maybe I did, but....I have a question that I'm really interested in getting people's opinions on, especially Vinman's, since he's one of the people I don't understand.

You know that neither Ralph Nader nor Bob Barr have a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election.  Yet you're gonna vote for one of them.  Why?  Sure, you have an opinion, and the right to vote and I completely support your right to both have an opinion and to vote for the man or woman of your choice (as long as you don't vote for a Bengals or Patriots fan...)
But aren't you effectively throwing that vote away?  Why wouldn't you carefully study both candidates that do have a shot at winning, and then make an informed choice between the two?
I do not think that our only options should be limited to Republicans or Democrats, but until there is a fully functional 3rd party which can mount a realistic challenge for a high office, what good does voting for someone like Nader or Barr do?

I'm not trying to be an ass.  I truly want to know what people think.

Thanks!
Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12189
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,243



« Reply #23 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 09:09 »

I think the 2nd Amendment is worded in such a way that it could be interpreted differently by different people.  LC's interpretation is a sensible one, but the gun-rights advocates would argue that the right to bear arms does confer unequivocal rights to bear arms.  Why?  Because we might need to get together a militia to defend the country.  Like, say, Bush invades Iran and starts a third front, and all our troops are stretched thin, and Mexico says Hey, this looks like our chance!

Founding fathers didn't envision this well-oiled machine that is our military, or fully automatic weapons, or nuclear weapons for that matter.  Would they have worded the 2nd differently?  I am sure that they would, but for better or worse I think our country now has more fealty to its gun culture than it does to the Founders' intent.

How would they have looked on our interpretation of the 1st Amendment? 

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Specifically, was their intent on Congress not making any laws respecting an establishment of religion what we have made of it?  I agree with the separation of church and state, but was taking Christmas celebrations out of schools what this Amendment really conveyed?

I realize too that the Founding Fathers themselves were not of one mind on many of these issues.

As for open, top-level negotiations with Iran, hell yes.  Ahmadinejad is an amusing oaf, but if we're talking with the mullahs of Iran, I think we have a much better chance of avoiding an Iran with nuclear weapons and the desire to use them.  Period.  The Bush foreign policy has been a stunny failure.  Period.  Obama's a poker player; he won't be all doe-eyed with unquestioning acceptance of BS they may try to pass off on us.  But communication, transparency, and inspections will work here.  Saber-rattling, not so much.

Anyway, Obama has a hell of a mess to clean up.

God speed.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11361
Online Online

Posts: 11,420


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 09:17 »

I've done the same as vinman in the past.  My reasoning is I could never bring myself to actively show support for any of the candidates who were on the ballot.  For me, this thinking goes back to the first Clinton election - that's when I started voting Libertarian.

This time, even though I live in TX and my vote for Obama won't matter one little bit, at least it'll cancel out some fucker who votes for McCain.  

Considered voting for Kerry last time but just couldn't do it.  If I thought that he had a shot at winning TX I would have though - anything to end the Bush insanity.  Actually, I might have.  Don't really remember.

So, I don't see voting Libertarian as a vote for the lunatic fringe so much as a protest vote.  And holding out some small hope that perhaps eventually a third party will have a shot.  Probably be better off going with whatever party Nader is associated with though as a potential third party.  
Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,192



« Reply #25 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 09:48 »

I've done the same as vinman in the past.  My reasoning is I could never bring myself to actively show support for any of the candidates who were on the ballot.  For me, this thinking goes back to the first Clinton election - that's when I started voting Libertarian.

This time, even though I live in TX and my vote for Obama won't matter one little bit, at least it'll cancel out some fucker who votes for McCain.  

Considered voting for Kerry last time but just couldn't do it.  If I thought that he had a shot at winning TX I would have though - anything to end the Bush insanity.  Actually, I might have.  Don't really remember.

So, I don't see voting Libertarian as a vote for the lunatic fringe so much as a protest vote.  And holding out some small hope that perhaps eventually a third party will have a shot.  Probably be better off going with whatever party Nader is associated with though as a potential third party.  


I understand that concept to a point.  And my vote for Obama won't change the way Kentucky goes, most likely.
I guess I'm really looking at the damage done to Al Gore by those who voted for Nader. 
Whether or not you like Al Gore, realistically, he lost the General Election because voters went with Nader rather than him.  Yep, those same voters may have voted for W., but I believe it was shown that Nader took the votes more from Gore than from Bush.

Anyway....hopefully it won't be that close this time and it won't matter.  And maybe the last eight years would have been worse under Gore.  I don't know. 
I'm probably just thinking too much, and without the ability to change history, it don't matter no way.
 eck02
Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,797



WWW
« Reply #26 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:00 »

Quote
I do like his thoughts on education.

My wife, as a teacher, has stated that she will vote for any candidate that will do away with No Child Left Behind as it currently exists.  She doesn't completely disagree with the stated principles or intent, but the fact is that it just doesn't work.  Bush's goal is to have 100% of students passing whatever test they have to pass to be considered "on grade level."  That is almost a statistical impossibility, and the only way to make it happen is to dumb down the test to the point that every kid can pass it just by writing his/her name at the top.

As for the election politics, well...thank goodness it's almost over!  Vinman, I wouldn't call you a crazy right-winger at all, because it sounds like you actually THINK about these things.  My issue with the right--at least here in SC--is that most of them haven't had a thought in about 20 years.  They just say, "I ain't votin' for no Hussein-lover!  If we elect Obama this world is comin' to an end."
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,192



« Reply #27 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:02 »

Back to my Election 2000 thing - Florida.
Difference in vote total was 2,912,790 for Bush, 2,912,253 for Gore.  Difference = 537.
Nader got 97,488.
FL has 25 electoral votes.
If it goes for Gore, new EC total is Gore = 291; W = 246.

537 votes!

Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,797



WWW
« Reply #28 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:08 »

Quote
Anyway....hopefully it won't be that close this time and it won't matter.  And maybe the last eight years would have been worse under Gore.  I don't know. 

I don't know if it would have improved under Big Al.  At the least, we can be pretty sure the White House power bill would have gone way up!

And, it is kind of scary to think that 537 votes may have decided the whole thing.

Still, I cannot be discouraged at people voting their convictions.  Maybe a vote for a third-party candidate is a "wasted" vote.  But, maybe if people voted their convictions rather than basing their decision on electability/lesser of two evils, we'd already have a viable third party at work in this country.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1270
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,471



« Reply #29 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:10 »

I've done the same as vinman in the past.  My reasoning is I could never bring myself to actively show support for any of the candidates who were on the ballot.  For me, this thinking goes back to the first Clinton election - that's when I started voting Libertarian.

This time, even though I live in TX and my vote for Obama won't matter one little bit, at least it'll cancel out some fucker who votes for McCain.  

Considered voting for Kerry last time but just couldn't do it.  If I thought that he had a shot at winning TX I would have though - anything to end the Bush insanity.  Actually, I might have.  Don't really remember.

So, I don't see voting Libertarian as a vote for the lunatic fringe so much as a protest vote.  And holding out some small hope that perhaps eventually a third party will have a shot.  Probably be better off going with whatever party Nader is associated with though as a potential third party.  


I understand that concept to a point.  And my vote for Obama won't change the way Kentucky goes, most likely.
I guess I'm really looking at the damage done to Al Gore by those who voted for Nader. 
Whether or not you like Al Gore, realistically, he lost the General Election because voters went with Nader rather than him.  Yep, those same voters may have voted for W., but I believe it was shown that Nader took the votes more from Gore than from Bush.

Anyway....hopefully it won't be that close this time and it won't matter.  And maybe the last eight years would have been worse under Gore.  I don't know. 
I'm probably just thinking too much, and without the ability to change history, it don't matter no way.
 eck02


Gore lost because of Kathleen Harris and the infamous hanging chad. 10000 people did NOT vote for Buchanan in West Palm Beach He won the popular vote by 500,000 remember. He also lost because he ran a shitty campaign. I don't think you can lay the loss at the feet of people who voted for Nader. Nadar had/has a strong message than resonates with a lot of people. How else are we going to break the 2 party system? It won't change until enough people vote differently. But you bring up a very interesting debate. Should someone sell out the ideals and go with a party that has a chance of winning? Or do you stick to your guns and vote Independent/ Libertarian/Green/Etc and make your personal statement?

Since I am in a swing state, and with everything on the line, I went for Obama. There just can't be a President Palin. Or even the chance of it. But I voted Libertarian for all the local down ticket races. I like Libertarians in local government. Leave me the fuck alone!

Finny brings up a good point about the 2nd Amendment. Part of the original intent, was that people needed access to guns in case they needed a Revolutionary War 2.0. That the public has a right to A) have a militia and B) arm said militia to basically protect themselves from the government.

Oh yeah, we need to get rid of the Electoral College ASAP. One person, one vote. You know there is a possibility that Obama wins the popular vote by over 5 million, and loses the Electoral College. Its remote, but nevertheless possible. Can't wait to see what happens if that goes down.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!