They all support the Drug War, they all support the draft, they all want a bigger federal government, etc.
No doubt. Michael Clarke Duncan looked better while walking "The Green Mile." Still, ABSTINENCE ONLY! Shout that three times, then ignore everything else.
When the marriage ends, is Marcy going to fire dude's hockey coach for not cutting him from the team?
HAHAHAHA REP My convention experience was fantastic but I must question their relevancy. They're a shell of what they once were. I did not attend the Democrat National Convention but I imagine that it was just the same as the RNC: a glorified pep rally. I doubt the conventions will ever return to their very prominent roll as actual nominating conventions with the speeches, fights on the floor and smoky back rooms. It is a shame that they're nothing more than infomercials for the two major parties.
Here's an interesting article about the history of presidential primaries....the reason (as I'm sure you know) that the conventions are meaningless now. http://www.slate.com/id/2167725/
The drug laws are there for a reason. It can be argued that it's a misguided reason, and we'd be better off without them, but I wouldn't use them as an example of 'hating freedom'. The draft? This is not the 1970's. Bigger federal government is a serious problem, I'm with you as far as that point. But we need to diagnose the problem correctly. It has a lot to do with ideology and corruption and the way the system works. I don't think it's a function of 'hating freedom.'
Don't the parties cover the expenses from voluntary donations? Actually I believe the conventions have a positive impact in the local economies, Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong about either of those two assertions.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/22/convention.funding/ (CNN) -- When Democrats gather in Denver, Colorado, and Republicans in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, for their political conventions this summer, they'll be taking along with them a big gift from federal taxpayers. The Federal Election Commission has announced that each convention will receive $17 million in taxpayer funds, money approved by Congress as part of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The fund was started in the 1970s as a way to get influential money out of politics, but critics say it has evolved into another pool of money political parties and candidates can tap into for the ever-increasing costs of national elections. "You have to wonder what that buys us," said Sheila Krumholz, who heads the Center for Responsive Politics. "The taxpayers are footing the bill for essentially four-day-long campaign ads for the parties and their candidates."
They are there for a reason. They do an excellent job of creating bigger government, especially in the courts, police, and prison areas. They're also good for demagoguing in election campaigns. I don't see how any of those things particularly flow from the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's still on the books, and we all help pay to maintain it. And hasn't Barack Obama talked about mandatory national service? It's not all due to freedom hating, sure. A good portion of it isn't. But it certainly has that effect, and people running for President should be able to recognize that.
Save yourself the dough and buy a cheaper bottle if you're going to ruin a perfectly good scotch like that.
Yes, but that is the price you pay for having the population writ large select your candidate instead of people that know what they are doing.
If they get 17 million, then I agree with you that it is 17 million too much. They shouldn't get taxpayers funds at all. But still, I don't see how it proves your contention that they hate freedom.
Sorry I brought it up. It depends on what mood I'm in, sometimes I don't. Plus, JW Blue straight up didn't make as cool a sentence. Them getting $17 million doesn't prove they hate freedom. The things I mentioned before do. EDIT: The $17 proves that they love corporate welfare. And I love the picture of the brave Americans who traveled to Cuba for the qualifier, with them having to cover their faces because they don't have the freedom to travel where they want. And both (as I understand it) John McCain and Barack Obama support this anti-freedom policy.