Politics of SB Members?

[adder70]

RichLockyer once bubbled...
I support our Constitutional rights and individual freedoms.
I support the promotion of individual responsibility.
I support the full and equitable application of the penalty of law to those who choose to violate said laws, and those who choose to infringe upon the rights of others by being irresponsible.

Okay... so since I'm "law and order" I guess you really couldn't call me a Libertarian, though I do believe that the government should be FAR more hands-off...

...as far as the function of government, if I were elected President, submitting the budget to Congress would be a simple matter of beginning at line 1 and determining if it is or is not provided for in the Constitution. If it is, fine. It get's funded plus inflation. If it's not, it's cut.

Ya... I'd last in office. Nope.

My understanding of Libertarians (obtained largely from a cousin who took a trip to Cal from FL to visit CATO, among other libertarian strongholds) is that they are for strict enforcement of laws. However, Libertarians feel that government should be minimal, and especially that law at the federal level should be limited to the most basic principles of society, ie murder, robbery, rape, etc. Social issues such as drugs, prositution, and legal contract issues (you can't sign away a right to sue even if you do!) should be addresses at the state and even local level. Under a libertarian system, the President would have a minimal impact on your daily life since he/she would only decide on foreign policy and budget for the military and national defense issues. (Libertarians also believe social programs such as welfare should be administered at the local level.) Unfortunately, how many of your local lawmakers do you know? Can you name even one? How about your state level representative or senator? Your governor? The libertarian form of government requires participation, and participation in the US government is often limited to voting a party line and not even knowing the politics of the individual for whom you are voting, with the possible exception of the president.

 

[loosebits]

adder70, I guess I tend to agree with you. I too want a simplified tax code (how many billions is this country wasting on tax lawyers and IRS auditers?). I also agree with Reublicans, in theory, on many other issues (but usually not in practice). But I always vote straight Democrat because I strongly support most of our Constutional rights (I could do without today's interpretation of the 2nd admendment).

Oh, and Clinton was dishonest but I feel the question should never have been asked. I liked Clinton, although I probably wouldn't want to have him over for diner, I thought he was intelligent and thoughtful (thoughtful as in wrestling with an issue, not sending a thank-you card).

Oh, I seem to have lost my weapons of mass distruction, has anyone seen them? Where is Ken Starr when you need him?

 

[WileEDiver]

loosebits once bubbled...
Oh, I seem to have lost my weapons of mass distruction, has anyone seen them? Where is Ken Starr when you need him?

loosebits,

You might want to look here.

 

[mempilot]

adder70 once bubbled...

1. I personally believe in high taxes for the richest (say, 75% for the amount above $2 million) and lower taxes for the middle classes.

2. I personally would rather live with an increased danger of terrorist incidents in a free country than lose the aspects that make the US great.

I agree with you on several of your points. I just have my input on a few others.

1. This country is great for another reason, capitalism. People are rewarded for hard work, ingenuity, and taking risk. Why take away 75% of what they worked so hard to achieve. People would stop taking the risks, and jobs they create would go away. How about doing away with the federal income tax and instead tax people's lifestyles. If I work hard to build a company with my blood, sweat, and tears and having failed several times in the process, don't take that away. Tax the crap out of me when I spend it. No more taxing the same dollar multiple times. This would as you put, simplify the tax structure.

2. People seem to sensationalize this "Big Brother is Watching" notion. If your not doing anything illegal, they have no reason to tap your phone. They don't have the resources nor the desire to listen to you talk to your loved ones.

I lost a company I owned due to the events of 9/11. A large portion of my income was dissolved over night. As an airline pilot, I am scheduled to be furloughed at the end of the year. But I go to sleep at night knowing that someone is fighting to protect my rights to rebuild my company, and my right to find another job. That security is what protects our rights in this country. We are a country, not millions of individuals. That banding together to do what it takes is what got us our freedom, and it will ensure that freedom in the future.

 

[drbill]

Mempilot- Can't agree on the capitalism issue unless it is conditioned somewhat like "responsible or ethical." I know too many wealthy individuals, self-proclaimed capitalists, who have made much of their money by deception and deceit (ripping off customers, cheating employees, violating labor and tax laws). Based on my experience it is rampant. To tax these individuals at a 75% rate would be only fair.

The problem is there are others I know who have made fortunes without such deception and deceit. They have produced solid products that had real value to customers, they treat their employees well (as partners in the endeavor which they are), they follow tax laws and they donate to good causes. Unfortunately in my experience, these folks are in the minority. Limited sample I readily admit.

Dr. Bill

 

[adder70]

loosebits once bubbled...


Oh, and Clinton was dishonest but I feel the question should never have been asked.

According to the Supreme Court, Paula Jones had the right under her civil rights to question a suspect about prior behavior with other women. When Clinton lied, he committed a felony. As for the individual question, examination of a hostile witness often takes this course: You know he "had sexual relations" with that woman , but have no concrete proof that he harassed her. You ask if he harassed, her, then if he had sexual relations. THen you spring the evidence that he did actually have relations and ask if he might to reconsider other statements. Then you ask the judge/jury how they trust him on the issue of harassment versus his trustworthiness concerning infidelity.

IT was a reasonable question concerning a suit against him for harassment. The Supreme required his participation, and truthfulness is required by oath in all legal proceedings. Thus, his lie violated the civil rights of Paula Jones and subverted the authority of the Supreme Court. Let's see, infidelity, felony, direct violation of an individual's civil rights, and direct subversion of Supreme Court authority. That's a great legacy for a president! let's have another! Then our kids will really learn about integrity and ethics! (See my past posts concerning NHL officiation vs officiating an actual hockey game.)

 

[adder70]

mempilot once bubbled...

2. People seem to sensationalize this "Big Brother is Watching" notion. If your not doing anything illegal, they have no reason to tap your phone. They don't have the resources nor the desire to listen to you talk to your loved ones.

Unless ONE PERSON decides you MAY EVENTUALLY RECEIVE information concerning a national security issue. Not that is matters. All they did before was tap a phone, use that info to obtain other evidence, and use that evidence to obtain a warrant validifying the tap, and present as evidence the tap records from after the warrant. I even heard direct from a policeman's mouth, "I would NEVER plant evidence. However, I might lie about how I found it." "Testilying" is an accepted practice in many departments nationwide (and frowned upon in many others) so why not in the FBI?

I would guess from your statements that you have had no trouble with law enforcement overstepping their authority or clearly evidencing their prejudice against you. I have also been lucky in this regard, but one of my cousins has not. He is not the most respectful of people in positions of authority who don't deserve it. (He's white, if anyone cares to know, as am I.) He was once told upon reporting a keying incident on his car in the high school parking lot by a policeman, "You shouldn't make enemies." followed by statements making clear that he would get no assistance of any kind. Thus, when a gun was pulled on him from another vehicle, he simply left at speed and never told the police department that clearly had no interest in justice for him.

I sympathize with you concerning the loss of your business, but I still feel that our rights make us Americans, and I don't want to cease being American just for a greater sense of security.


Oh crap, where'd my lunch hour go?

 

[TCDiver1]

drbill once bubbled...
Mempilot- Can't agree on the capitalism issue unless it is conditioned somewhat like "responsible or ethical." I know too many wealthy individuals, self-proclaimed capitalists, who have made much of their money by deception and deceit (ripping off customers, cheating employees, violating labor and tax laws). Based on my experience it is rampant. To tax these individuals at a 75% rate would be only fair.

Another view on this .... many of these wealthy people give a ton of money to charity. It would stand to reason the more uncle Sammy takes, the less they would give to charity. I'm not sure many charities would share your views on the 75% taxing of the rich .... it would hurt these charities and the people they help much more than the folks making the money.

Enforce the laws on the books with a vengence and the cheating, deception, deceit, etc will largely go away. IMO higher taxes aren't the answer when the people spending those taxes can't keep their fingers out of the cookie jar. The more we pay, the more they will spend .... does anyone doubt that?

Make all the politicians responsible for the budget just like we all have to be in our private lives and higher taxes are most likely not needed.

 

[Bob3]

Ashcroft wanted to put clothes on a partially nude statue. (one boob hanging out)
What does THAT tell ya about the guy?

 

[mempilot]

Bob3 once bubbled...
Ashcroft wanted to put clothes on a partially nude statue. (one boob hanging out)
What does THAT tell ya about the guy?

Depends on whether it was men's or women's clothing and whether or not the statue was sporting the CWI's (cold weather indicators). LOL

*Homer voice*
mmmmmm... boobies