Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 09:21:13 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Hunt for Lost City of Atlantis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3227295.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

How do Republicans Appeal more to Young People?

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How do Republicans Appeal more to Young People?  (Read 258 times)
0 Members and 104 Guests are viewing this topic.
Roy McGiness
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« on: January 07, 2008, 03:09:20 pm »

Looking around at the country's primaries, I am beginning to feel troubled by the latest trends.  Young people are not voting for Republicans! This is beginning to worry me.  What part of the legacy of Ronald Reagan don't you understand?  Republicans have long been the party of less taxes, less government, and strong national defense. 

Please let me know what you don't see in today's Republican Party so that we can help you young people understand us a little better and why you should give us your vote.
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2008, 04:55:17 pm »

Ron Paul appeals to many young people.

It's the CFR Illuminati-Republicans that cause all the alienation.
Report Spam   Logged
Proud to be GOP
Full Member
***
Posts: 37



« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2008, 11:13:52 am »

Ron Paul is too libral to be a solid Republican candidate, Volitzer. Wink I don't know any other Republican that has the position on the war that he does.
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2008, 01:20:24 pm »

Quote
How do Republicans Appeal more to Young People?


Easy, don't run! 
Or maybe the lot of you can get together and all jump off a bridge together.

(You asked Wink )
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2008, 01:21:23 pm »

You can also all move over to Iraq and make this a SANE country again, LOSERS!!!
Report Spam   Logged
Roy McGiness
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2008, 01:19:21 pm »

Pretty unconstructive suggestions you have there, Allison.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2008, 01:23:44 pm »

You asked.
Report Spam   Logged
Mitch McBushen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 91



« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2008, 01:14:11 am »

I'd say we Republicans have to appeal to the youth the way you always have to appeal to youth - using our inherent sex appeal!  What woman could resist a white Republican male, dressed in a speedo or a thong?  Heck, we should put together a calendar of all the Republican candidates for President, scantily clad!  That way, we could get the woman's vote for sure! 
Report Spam   Logged
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2008, 03:35:41 pm »

Quote
What part of the legacy of Ronald Reagan don't you understand?  Republicans have long been the party of less taxes, less government, and strong national defense.

Please let me know what you don't see in today's Republican Party so that we can help you young people understand us a little better and why you should give us your vote.


Everyone who is not rich makes up about 80% of the American population. Why would the poor want to vote for any political party who would tax the poor and give tax breaks to the rich?
Report Spam   Logged

Roy McGiness
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 174



« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2008, 09:39:31 pm »

Whoa there young feller, Republicans want to lower taxes for everyone!  And you can take that to the bank.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2008, 10:25:34 pm »

Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

Where do the rest of the Republican candidates stand ?? ??
Report Spam   Logged
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2008, 04:48:52 am »

Zietgeist the movie, creates an easy understanding of a plain truth that shouldn't be taken lately nor forsaken.
Report Spam   Logged

HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2008, 04:57:28 am »

Our money is backed by nothing and hasn't been for a long time. International bankers loan us the money at the value of the dollar plus interest. As the end result shows, debt is all we can know as Americans which is exactly the plan from way back.
One other thing that few people know is that the federal income tax we pay into all year long is supported by no laws.
Meaning that unless you owe uncle sam money, you don't even have to file an income tax.

Even if you do owe, it's taxation without representation.
There are no laws that say we have to pay it.
The federal reserve by the way is no more a government office then hollywood.
Report Spam   Logged

HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2008, 05:03:56 am »

9/11

New curcumstancial evidence has surfaced that I'm going to be publishing soon that shows connections between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. I will also be showing proof that GWB's uncle had connections to Nazi Germany.

Getting back to 9/11-
I was over defence contracts. In order for this country to justify the spending, Bush needed a reason.
I will be presenting proof of this as well.

And so close to election time.  Wink
Report Spam   Logged

Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2008, 09:39:34 am »

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy