-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Kerrys' got a plan -
- Thread starter rlinger
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 5,179
Roger, I voted for each person I thought was best suited for their jobs. They were both Rebuplicans and Democrats.
And I'm no pussy.
And I'm no pussy.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 5,179
Sorry Roger. And thanks.
I and all us over the years have heard so many boast "well, I vote for the man". Kinda like it's admirable to be able to distinguish between party and the actual individual. Well, that just ain't so. He is a memebr of the party and it is the party bosses that got him where he is and it is the party bosses that will guide him to where he goes. He will pretty much tow the party line. Look back into history, even recent history, and see for yourself. A man can and does deviate but pretty much always tows the line. You dance with the one that brung ya. It's especially the same with professional politics. I vote party politics. If he ain't no good he's much less worse than the other. As an example a friend of mine recently asked me to vote for a Dem running for Congress. She said he was much better and as a reason "at least he isn't a coke head" (meaning the Rep. is). I asked is he going to vote with Bush? "I don't know but probably - mostly" was the responce. I handed the leaflet back and said no thanks. I knew better. It is a two party system, one on one side of the field and the other at the opposite. There are team players within each party. Each party ALWAYS tries to overcome the other. If you are a Republican a vote for Kerry is a vote against your party registration and your party beliefs and you are trying to empower the opposition in its quest to destroy your party.
RL
RL
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,398
No Terrorists in Iraq?????
"What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," - Tom Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi fled to Iraq in 2001 after losing a leg in a US missile strike on his Afghan base - the hospital he was treated in was the private domain of the Hussein family.
The Hussein regime had a standing offer of $25,000.00 to the families of ANY suicide bomber who took his life in the cause of Jihad.
According to the United States Information Agency a Manhattan federal court found well before the 9-11 attacks and the presidency of George Bush that ...bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq. The entire article is available at: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm
The Link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004...he.Link.Between.Iraq.And.AlQaeda-688380.shtml
Case Closed: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
The Connection: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp
Saddams Ambassador to al-Qaeda http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12292
Document links Saddam, bin Laden http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden:
Iraqi intelligence documents provide evidence of direct link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html
Osama's Best Friend: The further connections between al Qaeda and Saddam. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp
Pre-Bush timeline/list of Iraqs Ties to Al Queda:
Sam Pender-author of Iraq's Smoking Gun and other books on the matter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1152923/posts
Clinton Indictment Cited Iraq-bin Laden Link http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/13/224948.shtml
EnemiesTogether:
Clinton was right: Saddam and al Qaeda had numerous connections.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005249
No Question About It: Saddam and the terrorists http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
The Al Qaeda Connection: More reason to suspect that bin Laden and Saddam may have been in league. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/889jldct.asp
Iraq & Militant Islam: Saddams al Qaeda links were a worthy rationale for toppling his regime. http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406010821.asp
Saddam's al Qaeda Connection http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
Iraqs State Sponsorship of Osama bin-Laden and the al-Qaeda Terror Network http://www.washingtondispatch.com/cgibin/artman/exec/view.cgi/16/32
The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections
Richard Miniter: author of Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clintons Failures Unleashed Global Terror http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
The Story of Salmon Pak http://edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/salmanpak.htm
The Iraqi-Bin Laden Connection http://www.geocities.com/republican_strategist/Iraq-Bin-Laden.html
I believe the evidence points to a web of both cooperation and meetings between Saddam's Iraq, particularly the intelligence services as well as the Fedayeen, and various cells and allied groups of Al-Queda. There is no dispute that the Taliban-like Al Ansar Islam group in Northern Iraq provided safe haven for hundreds of Taliban and Al Queda fighters fleeing Afghanistan and were secretly armed and funded by Saddam Hussein. Dare I even mention the star treatment and medical treatment of al-Zarqawi while in Baghdad, as well as the organization of dozens of terrorist sleeper cells in Saddams pre-invasion Iraq by the now infamous, beheading butcher and master terrorist? The agreement in the early nineties between Saddam and Al-Queda laid the groundwork for cooperation between the two against a common enemy. There is also a very strong probability that Iraqi agents and Al Queda terrorists assisted each other in multiple terrorist attacks in the years leading up to 9-11.
I will leave you with one last, intriguing possible piece of the puzzle. A little less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriya carried a column headlined, American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladi. (July 21, 2001). Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal uncannily predicted that bin Laden would attack the US with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House. The state-approved column also said that bin Laden will strike America on the arm that is already hurting, and that the US will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs (New York, New York).
Health Care - From the official Kerry/Edwards site:
I too have a BIG stake in health care: my wife is a breast cancer survivor and I have sever GERD and a liver disease called NASH, both precursors to cancer if not taken care of - but being self-employed insurance is currently not even in the cards. Will the government help? Nope Do I want them to help? Nope The problem with our current health care system - Greed - the greed of the insurance companies and the healh care system in general to charge wahtever since - well you do have insurance don't you! I could go on and on about the greed and graft that runs rampant in the sytem and that we have personally experienced, but it would fill reams of paper. BTW - the Canadian Drug Plan - after losing our insurance I still had an outstanding prescription for my GERD meds - the savings a little over a $100.00 - it helped a bit but at $250.00 for a ninety day supply even that became too expensive - luckily at the time Priolosec OTC became available which allowed me a viable alternative to the prescription. Of course they want to make a "law" allowing cheaper Canadian drugs - well why not just make a "law" setting price controls here in the USA?????
If you truly believe this than you should read the history of the Soviets in Afghanistan - they sent a quarter of a million troops to that country and lost. The war there WILL NOT be won by conventional means, but then perhaps you know better than the head of Special Operrations Command. (my brother, a 23 year vet in Spec OPs, spent time in both Afghanistan and Pakistan so I have first hand reports - and he just shakes his head in wonder when he hears statements saying all we needs is more troops to win.
My God! You a life member of the NRA say this? Have you read his voting record?
And speaking of his voting record - where was Mr Kerry when so many important votes came up in Congress that would have changed so much he now currently decries as being wrong with the Bush Admin? His attendance record in the last twenty years is PATHETIC! But he made sure he returned to Congress to vote for the last two gun control measures and the measure on the one on no controls on abortion.
And no I DO NOT just listen to Fox News and I have been following politics and the consequences of such long before 9/11. (I am a registered Independent, I cannot and will not in good conscience follow any "Party" Line, and I am a firm believer in libertarianism - actually I'm a rational anarchist but that will never happen so I follow the next best route.)
One last note - Yesterday 10/9/04 the Kerry campaign "blamed" the Bush admin for the flu vaccine debacle - guess what - the President asked for $100 mil but Congress allowed only $50 mil so who is to blame?
The problem as I see it is we the People, have put way too much emphasis on the executive branch and too often fail to see what the Congress - the body that formulates the law - is doing.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 5,179
Roger you sure sound like my Dad. 
Actually you're right that a given presidential candidate is virtually certain to follow his party's concensus. This is one reason I think the Founders were so brilliant in setting up the natural tension between the Executive and Legislative branches. They ensured that no current political climate could affect both branches at the same time by imposing different terms on their service. In doing so they have ensured that neither voting strictly along party lines nor splitting ones vote will have an immediate effect on the path our country takes. In effect this gave us the freedom to vote for the candidate - Executive or Legislative - that we believe will best represent our Country's needs. I think it's a great system and I've seen and read how it can pull us out of potentially devastating trends. (Japanese concentration camps for example, or McCarthyism.) Our Constitution created the stongest governing body in the world. None of us can screw it up irrevocably.
Now I'm going to change direction and pose a question. There's no point arguing whether being in Iraq is the right thing; we're there and we'd better make certain we make it a success or we're going to be in very deep caca.
Both parties are swearing they would never, ever, no way, not us, institute the draft.
I don't see how anyone can think we'll be able to maintain our military strength without it. I read a brief survey in VFW that said about 1% of military-age voters would volunteer to serve. Like Vietnam the current actions do not engender any patriotic ferver in our country's youth. While I think military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has a lot more to do with our national security than Vietnam ever did that begs the question why our population will not pony up. They don't get it.
I've had this discussion with my son often. He says, "Why would I fight for a government I don't believe in?" I reply, "You're not being asked to fight for your government but for the country that has freely given you everything you've ever known." (You might imagine this is a rather abbreviated version of the actual conversations. For what it's worth he is starting to understand that the government is a rolling average and that the United States is far more important than any given adminstration.) In the same way that people fail to distinguish between war in Iraq and the war on terrorism (they are different), we have failed to distinguish for our youth the difference between whatever administration is currently calling the shots and the far greater construct - The United States of America - it's sworn to protect.
Because we're all so good at thinking in the short term, why is no one willing to recognise that our military is likely to become unable to fully prosecute the fronts we're in now? And that's pretending that North Korea and Iran don't matter. I can't help but believe that without a draft - quick - we are going to suffer. And we had better prevail - Islamic Fundamentalists are not going to just go back to their simple lives; they've brought war to western civilization and they're not going away quietly. We'd better soldier up.
Bush wants to pretend there's no problem and Kerry seems to think we can pull out of Iraq on some kind of timetable, while other countries fill in the gaps we leave. I think they're both wrong.
You all know I'm not too hep on being popular.
Talking openly about a draft certainly seems an unpopular thing - just say "Draft" to your average American and watch em get all indignant. Am I wrong? How do we go forward to resolve our military requirements with no patriotic commitment and no draft?
P.S. Thanks Chuck, I edited "Administrative" branch for "Executive." Now I'll bow out. Whew.
Actually you're right that a given presidential candidate is virtually certain to follow his party's concensus. This is one reason I think the Founders were so brilliant in setting up the natural tension between the Executive and Legislative branches. They ensured that no current political climate could affect both branches at the same time by imposing different terms on their service. In doing so they have ensured that neither voting strictly along party lines nor splitting ones vote will have an immediate effect on the path our country takes. In effect this gave us the freedom to vote for the candidate - Executive or Legislative - that we believe will best represent our Country's needs. I think it's a great system and I've seen and read how it can pull us out of potentially devastating trends. (Japanese concentration camps for example, or McCarthyism.) Our Constitution created the stongest governing body in the world. None of us can screw it up irrevocably.Now I'm going to change direction and pose a question. There's no point arguing whether being in Iraq is the right thing; we're there and we'd better make certain we make it a success or we're going to be in very deep caca.
Both parties are swearing they would never, ever, no way, not us, institute the draft.
I don't see how anyone can think we'll be able to maintain our military strength without it. I read a brief survey in VFW that said about 1% of military-age voters would volunteer to serve. Like Vietnam the current actions do not engender any patriotic ferver in our country's youth. While I think military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has a lot more to do with our national security than Vietnam ever did that begs the question why our population will not pony up. They don't get it.
I've had this discussion with my son often. He says, "Why would I fight for a government I don't believe in?" I reply, "You're not being asked to fight for your government but for the country that has freely given you everything you've ever known." (You might imagine this is a rather abbreviated version of the actual conversations. For what it's worth he is starting to understand that the government is a rolling average and that the United States is far more important than any given adminstration.) In the same way that people fail to distinguish between war in Iraq and the war on terrorism (they are different), we have failed to distinguish for our youth the difference between whatever administration is currently calling the shots and the far greater construct - The United States of America - it's sworn to protect.
Because we're all so good at thinking in the short term, why is no one willing to recognise that our military is likely to become unable to fully prosecute the fronts we're in now? And that's pretending that North Korea and Iran don't matter. I can't help but believe that without a draft - quick - we are going to suffer. And we had better prevail - Islamic Fundamentalists are not going to just go back to their simple lives; they've brought war to western civilization and they're not going away quietly. We'd better soldier up.
Bush wants to pretend there's no problem and Kerry seems to think we can pull out of Iraq on some kind of timetable, while other countries fill in the gaps we leave. I think they're both wrong.
You all know I'm not too hep on being popular.
Talking openly about a draft certainly seems an unpopular thing - just say "Draft" to your average American and watch em get all indignant. Am I wrong? How do we go forward to resolve our military requirements with no patriotic commitment and no draft?P.S. Thanks Chuck, I edited "Administrative" branch for "Executive." Now I'll bow out. Whew.
Well Dave I just don't know where to start but I'll try.
As for your first pharagraph I stick by my statements concerning that.
As for your second pharagraph that starts as a question that has no question: I don't know what to say.
As for your third pharagraph, in fact the draft has been brought up, and recently (last week) and voted upon in Congress. Two Democrats proposed it. Only two votes were cast in favor of it. Both votes were Democrate and neither of them were of the two that proposed it. No other Congressmen, Democrat or Republican, voted for it. All others present voted against it. There is no need for draft however, it was two Democrat Congressmen that proposed there should be by submitting a bill for vote in Congress. It went down in flames, as it it should have.
Your boy is wise to distrust and dislike our government. I don't like my government either. I love the Constitution which was designed to restrict our government. Long live the Constitution. I also agree with your reasoning with him.
There are no fears rested in me that our military can not take care of business regardless of where or how many places it must be at any time, now and then. I know deep inside that this country can and will rise to any difficulties presented it. Any time, any place, any places.
Bush has never pretended there is no problem. Where you ever got that; I have no idea.
RL
As for your first pharagraph I stick by my statements concerning that.
As for your second pharagraph that starts as a question that has no question: I don't know what to say.
As for your third pharagraph, in fact the draft has been brought up, and recently (last week) and voted upon in Congress. Two Democrats proposed it. Only two votes were cast in favor of it. Both votes were Democrate and neither of them were of the two that proposed it. No other Congressmen, Democrat or Republican, voted for it. All others present voted against it. There is no need for draft however, it was two Democrat Congressmen that proposed there should be by submitting a bill for vote in Congress. It went down in flames, as it it should have.
Your boy is wise to distrust and dislike our government. I don't like my government either. I love the Constitution which was designed to restrict our government. Long live the Constitution. I also agree with your reasoning with him.
There are no fears rested in me that our military can not take care of business regardless of where or how many places it must be at any time, now and then. I know deep inside that this country can and will rise to any difficulties presented it. Any time, any place, any places.
Bush has never pretended there is no problem. Where you ever got that; I have no idea.
RL
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,623
I don't plan on getting into any arguments here and this will be the last I post on these subjects, I made the first mistake by posting in here in the first place so what the hey.
The only reason I posted what I did was to maybe get a little more clarity about what the canidates really have in their agenda. I do believe in voting for the person and not the party, and those that will only vote one party no matter who's running is a fool. I guess if Elmer Fudd was on the republican ticket he would get Rogers vote. Thats his right and his privilage, so don't attack me for my mine. And to say one party does nothing but tries to destroy the other party, this is true, and also the mentality we need to get away from. But it will never change if you don't set you party nominees aside and vote for the better qualified. We're all in this together people, our fore fathers and mothers fought and struggled side by side to give us what we all enjoy today. Pick the best people that have the best ideals in mind for us all and vote for them, don't vote for Elmer just because he's Republican or Democrat.
Darren, pointed me in the directions of the Kerry web site, and I thank him for this. But I don't want to read what someone else might have posted in his favor, I want to hear his plans and proposals from his own month and he has felled to do this. The reasons for these debates is to educate the public about the men and their plans for us all, sorry Dave , Kerry hasn't done much for me.
I've said all I'm going to, my parents always told me not to talk, religion, politics or money. And stupid me again, I didn't listen. But I'm learn'in.
Bill
The only reason I posted what I did was to maybe get a little more clarity about what the canidates really have in their agenda. I do believe in voting for the person and not the party, and those that will only vote one party no matter who's running is a fool. I guess if Elmer Fudd was on the republican ticket he would get Rogers vote. Thats his right and his privilage, so don't attack me for my mine. And to say one party does nothing but tries to destroy the other party, this is true, and also the mentality we need to get away from. But it will never change if you don't set you party nominees aside and vote for the better qualified. We're all in this together people, our fore fathers and mothers fought and struggled side by side to give us what we all enjoy today. Pick the best people that have the best ideals in mind for us all and vote for them, don't vote for Elmer just because he's Republican or Democrat.
Darren, pointed me in the directions of the Kerry web site, and I thank him for this. But I don't want to read what someone else might have posted in his favor, I want to hear his plans and proposals from his own month and he has felled to do this. The reasons for these debates is to educate the public about the men and their plans for us all, sorry Dave , Kerry hasn't done much for me.
I've said all I'm going to, my parents always told me not to talk, religion, politics or money. And stupid me again, I didn't listen. But I'm learn'in.
Bill
- Joined
- Mar 18, 1999
- Messages
- 2,112
Bill,
Along with politics, religion and money, heat treating is mixed in there somewhere.
Craig
Along with politics, religion and money, heat treating is mixed in there somewhere.
Craig
fitzo
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2001
- Messages
- 6,648
Interesting reading. Being very cynical, my conclusions:
1) There is no good choice for president or any other political office because, like ALL OF US, candidates approach office with an agenda of specifics that cannot by its very nature serve the best for all. It is human nature. Bear in mind that greed and self-interest are survival traits. Also bear in mind that ego motivates most people, not selflessness; where would you place our politicians in that spectrum? How can anyone not see that anyone who aspires to the most powerful seat in the world has some kind of messiah complex and should thus be the least suited to the job? The polarization of the USA into pure Democrat or Republican agendae is dragging us into ruin. Radical liberalism on one end and Bible-thumping Fundamentalism on the other are too far removed from the moderate approaches we need. Both parties have a mix of better and worse, and until we can synthesize the best path out of two poor choices, we're screwed. While special interests try to force their agenda, we have no path that serves the best for all.
2) We're screwed anyway in the long run. As the human world overpopulates, rapes the earth and its resources, we will be subject to the same natural consequences as any other biological population. Poverty (lack of resources), disease, and radical disruption of the status quo will inevitably result. Our technology serves us on one end but fails us on another. Consider AIDS, SARS, and whatever next influenza is brought to us courtesy of African monkeys or Chinese ducks**t. A great boon brought to us courtesy of rapid worldwide transportation. We somehow consider ourselves above the natural laws, but it's not so. We cannot hope to survive as Americans or Chinese or whatever national or religious group while everone else collapses around us. We'll all share in the Big Demise. If we don't learn to survive as a species the cockroaches will rule once again. Good luck stopping that with our present modus operandi as a species.
3) There's an old saying "We tend to get what we deserve." We see the effects of that on a daily basis. We drive our cars all over, we suck energy to post on the Internet, we live far longer than nature would have us because of technology (me especially!). Point me to one nation-sized group of people who don't buy into the same greed as soon as they get the chance. We ARE NOT stewards of mankind, we are consumers in an ever-increasing trend of overuse. We sacrifice our future because we want it all RIGHT NOW, expecting things to "work out for the better" somewhere down the line, let the next generation handle it. We call it "hope", while in truth it is selfishness.
That very same demon which separates us from the other species, technology, will also be our downfall. We have so much invested in man-as-technology that it has to either save us or kill us. Personally, I have grave doubts.
The Jewish Kabala mysticism portends grave trouble for mankind in 2010-2012. Should be an interesting world. Who's bringing the popcorn? Make enough that we can leave some for the cockroaches......
Have a nice day......
1) There is no good choice for president or any other political office because, like ALL OF US, candidates approach office with an agenda of specifics that cannot by its very nature serve the best for all. It is human nature. Bear in mind that greed and self-interest are survival traits. Also bear in mind that ego motivates most people, not selflessness; where would you place our politicians in that spectrum? How can anyone not see that anyone who aspires to the most powerful seat in the world has some kind of messiah complex and should thus be the least suited to the job? The polarization of the USA into pure Democrat or Republican agendae is dragging us into ruin. Radical liberalism on one end and Bible-thumping Fundamentalism on the other are too far removed from the moderate approaches we need. Both parties have a mix of better and worse, and until we can synthesize the best path out of two poor choices, we're screwed. While special interests try to force their agenda, we have no path that serves the best for all.
2) We're screwed anyway in the long run. As the human world overpopulates, rapes the earth and its resources, we will be subject to the same natural consequences as any other biological population. Poverty (lack of resources), disease, and radical disruption of the status quo will inevitably result. Our technology serves us on one end but fails us on another. Consider AIDS, SARS, and whatever next influenza is brought to us courtesy of African monkeys or Chinese ducks**t. A great boon brought to us courtesy of rapid worldwide transportation. We somehow consider ourselves above the natural laws, but it's not so. We cannot hope to survive as Americans or Chinese or whatever national or religious group while everone else collapses around us. We'll all share in the Big Demise. If we don't learn to survive as a species the cockroaches will rule once again. Good luck stopping that with our present modus operandi as a species.
3) There's an old saying "We tend to get what we deserve." We see the effects of that on a daily basis. We drive our cars all over, we suck energy to post on the Internet, we live far longer than nature would have us because of technology (me especially!). Point me to one nation-sized group of people who don't buy into the same greed as soon as they get the chance. We ARE NOT stewards of mankind, we are consumers in an ever-increasing trend of overuse. We sacrifice our future because we want it all RIGHT NOW, expecting things to "work out for the better" somewhere down the line, let the next generation handle it. We call it "hope", while in truth it is selfishness.
That very same demon which separates us from the other species, technology, will also be our downfall. We have so much invested in man-as-technology that it has to either save us or kill us. Personally, I have grave doubts.
The Jewish Kabala mysticism portends grave trouble for mankind in 2010-2012. Should be an interesting world. Who's bringing the popcorn? Make enough that we can leave some for the cockroaches......
Have a nice day......
Dave,
Wow! I don't know where to begin........
You talk about abortion and gay rights being moral issues that we have no business passing legislation on, that we should follow the constituion, etc.
Well....
Nearly EVERY piece of legislation IS based on moral principles of some kind.....what one group or another deems to be morally appropriate. Through out ALL of our history it has been Judeo-Christian morals that have guided this nation and given us our freedoms, culture, laws, sense of what is right/wrong. Laws MUST be based on morality--if laws are not morally correct then they are WRONG and should not be law. The further we have gone from these principles the worse things have gotten for us as a nation.
You get into the health care issue and yet pretend to support our constitution. Have you ever read that document? Pay particular attention to the 10th amendment. It clearly states that the fed. gov't has ONLY those powers SPCIFICALLy granted to it by the Constitution and that ALL other power (not denied the states or people) SHALL remain the powers of the States and or the People. No where does the Constitution grant ANY power for the feds to get involved in health care! Of course there are a great many other areas that our Federal Gov't has delved into that is equally un-constitutional.
Many argue that the Constitution is a living document and must be interpretted in light of todays values...basically a meaningless peice of drivell that ,if carried to it's fullest extent, means that our Constitution means absolutly nothing! If we continue down this path we are doomed.
Our Constitution MUST be jealously guarded or it will become a meaningless peice of paper. If the Constitution needs changeing we do it through the amendment process---not by simply pretending it means something it doesn't or to ignore it all together.
Basically the socialists have pulled our nation so far to the left that todays moderate republican would make a pretty good 1960's Jack Kennedy. Look at the Democratic party and what it's been pushing. Now wonder Ronald Reagon stated that he did not leave the Democratic party---it left him.
The Democratic party has become a party of strict socialism.
Unfortunately the Republicans are being pulled in that same direction.
Dave, I do not mean to persoanlly attack you, just to bring up the other side of the coin.
Don't get the idea that am a die hard Republican--I am not. It's simply that I can not vote for ANYONE who supports the Democratic party or it's socialist agenda (kerry is truly, I believe, a socialist at heart). To be honest it's all I can do to hold my nose and cast a vote for a Republican, they are very nearly as slimey as the Democrats. God help us, our nation is deep trouble!
Sorry for being so long winded, I'll get down off the soap box for now.....
Mike
Wow! I don't know where to begin........
You talk about abortion and gay rights being moral issues that we have no business passing legislation on, that we should follow the constituion, etc.
Well....
Nearly EVERY piece of legislation IS based on moral principles of some kind.....what one group or another deems to be morally appropriate. Through out ALL of our history it has been Judeo-Christian morals that have guided this nation and given us our freedoms, culture, laws, sense of what is right/wrong. Laws MUST be based on morality--if laws are not morally correct then they are WRONG and should not be law. The further we have gone from these principles the worse things have gotten for us as a nation.
You get into the health care issue and yet pretend to support our constitution. Have you ever read that document? Pay particular attention to the 10th amendment. It clearly states that the fed. gov't has ONLY those powers SPCIFICALLy granted to it by the Constitution and that ALL other power (not denied the states or people) SHALL remain the powers of the States and or the People. No where does the Constitution grant ANY power for the feds to get involved in health care! Of course there are a great many other areas that our Federal Gov't has delved into that is equally un-constitutional.
Many argue that the Constitution is a living document and must be interpretted in light of todays values...basically a meaningless peice of drivell that ,if carried to it's fullest extent, means that our Constitution means absolutly nothing! If we continue down this path we are doomed.
Our Constitution MUST be jealously guarded or it will become a meaningless peice of paper. If the Constitution needs changeing we do it through the amendment process---not by simply pretending it means something it doesn't or to ignore it all together.
Basically the socialists have pulled our nation so far to the left that todays moderate republican would make a pretty good 1960's Jack Kennedy. Look at the Democratic party and what it's been pushing. Now wonder Ronald Reagon stated that he did not leave the Democratic party---it left him.
The Democratic party has become a party of strict socialism.
Unfortunately the Republicans are being pulled in that same direction.
Dave, I do not mean to persoanlly attack you, just to bring up the other side of the coin.
Don't get the idea that am a die hard Republican--I am not. It's simply that I can not vote for ANYONE who supports the Democratic party or it's socialist agenda (kerry is truly, I believe, a socialist at heart). To be honest it's all I can do to hold my nose and cast a vote for a Republican, they are very nearly as slimey as the Democrats. God help us, our nation is deep trouble!
Sorry for being so long winded, I'll get down off the soap box for now.....
Mike
- Joined
- Nov 27, 1999
- Messages
- 3,745
Your an interesting person Fitzo. After reading all the posts, I find some that I agree with and some I don't agree with. This is human nature and also the result of a non-political site where friends do disagree with dignity.
That said, I come to your post where I can only say....
AMEN !!!!!!
That said, I come to your post where I can only say....
AMEN !!!!!!
fitzo
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2001
- Messages
- 6,648
BTW, here's a political speech I'd love to hear for it's refreshing candor:
"Hi, cattle! I wanna be ruler of the universe. I hope to change the face of the world to best serve me and my friends and the people who pull my strings. Being the smartest person around in my unhumble opinion, I realize that this is best realized by having you all go blithely along with this by me making life a little better for you so that you won't complain. Thus, I'll share some of my plan:
Suck the rest of the world dry of their energy reserves. That way, we'll still have some left while everyone else reverts to a pre-technology. That way they can't bother us anymore, either. Works for me, and, you too! Along the way we'll stop this pesky inteference from someone else's radical religious views interfering with OUR radical religious views.
Forego saying things like "Freedom is a God-given right for all men." That's pure bulldoo. He who is strongest rules. It's best to rule, you live the good life at the top that way.
If you want cheaper healthcare, well, then, don't expect medicine to improve. Be content with dying at 40 like we used to. Otherwise, you're gonna have to pay for it. Stem-cell, shmem-cell...you'll live too long and suck Social Security dry on "my watch" and I can't have that. People like fitzo piss me off, he's sucking up insurance profits needing $40k of meds a year to live.
I don't want you to have guns, you're less of a threat to me that way.
You want corporations to get rich because all your retirement funds are based on them getting rich. If they fail, you fail. Let the greedy CEO's have their due, it's nature at work. Nothing's been the same since those pesky labor unions wanted a bigger piece of the pie in the 70's. They should have been content having a better future each successive year and not gotten greedy and wanting to live like us rich folk.
Who cares about trees? With environmental change comes bigger waves for me to windsurf.
[Choose one:]
a) I'm trying to relive the PT boat fantasy of a Massachusetts liberal who had special treatment, became president and I have modeled my life after. My ego needs this, and I deserve it, I'm special. [or]
b)I lived a life of debauchery and special treatment. In order to continue my fantasy without repercussion, I "found Jesus". Now I want you to all live by my penance, too. I will "pray" to myself and surely come up with the "RIGHT WAY" for you to best serve my needs.
So, vote for me, so I can assume my rightful place as master of all I see, just like I dreamed about as a child. I'll keep telling you how good it is for all of you because it's good for me."
Now that's a straight-shooting bastard I could at least know where he stands.
"Hi, cattle! I wanna be ruler of the universe. I hope to change the face of the world to best serve me and my friends and the people who pull my strings. Being the smartest person around in my unhumble opinion, I realize that this is best realized by having you all go blithely along with this by me making life a little better for you so that you won't complain. Thus, I'll share some of my plan:
Suck the rest of the world dry of their energy reserves. That way, we'll still have some left while everyone else reverts to a pre-technology. That way they can't bother us anymore, either. Works for me, and, you too! Along the way we'll stop this pesky inteference from someone else's radical religious views interfering with OUR radical religious views.
Forego saying things like "Freedom is a God-given right for all men." That's pure bulldoo. He who is strongest rules. It's best to rule, you live the good life at the top that way.
If you want cheaper healthcare, well, then, don't expect medicine to improve. Be content with dying at 40 like we used to. Otherwise, you're gonna have to pay for it. Stem-cell, shmem-cell...you'll live too long and suck Social Security dry on "my watch" and I can't have that. People like fitzo piss me off, he's sucking up insurance profits needing $40k of meds a year to live.
I don't want you to have guns, you're less of a threat to me that way.
You want corporations to get rich because all your retirement funds are based on them getting rich. If they fail, you fail. Let the greedy CEO's have their due, it's nature at work. Nothing's been the same since those pesky labor unions wanted a bigger piece of the pie in the 70's. They should have been content having a better future each successive year and not gotten greedy and wanting to live like us rich folk.
Who cares about trees? With environmental change comes bigger waves for me to windsurf.
[Choose one:]
a) I'm trying to relive the PT boat fantasy of a Massachusetts liberal who had special treatment, became president and I have modeled my life after. My ego needs this, and I deserve it, I'm special. [or]
b)I lived a life of debauchery and special treatment. In order to continue my fantasy without repercussion, I "found Jesus". Now I want you to all live by my penance, too. I will "pray" to myself and surely come up with the "RIGHT WAY" for you to best serve my needs.
So, vote for me, so I can assume my rightful place as master of all I see, just like I dreamed about as a child. I'll keep telling you how good it is for all of you because it's good for me."
Now that's a straight-shooting bastard I could at least know where he stands.
fitzo
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2001
- Messages
- 6,648
And, finally, other than to either defend or laugh at myself as the need merits I'll bother you no more, but a couple of words about our Constitution:
We need to remember the historical context within which it was written. No one could envision what the world was to rapidly become in the next 200 years, so it was written with the status quo of the times in mind. The very fact there are amendments indicate it is an imperfect document, and our founders realized that, which we tend to forget. While high-minded in many ways, it also has a tragic flaw in that "all equal men" did not include women or slaves. That paradox has to be understood to understand the Constitution. How equal was everyone if there were taxes to vote and many were excluded? Just exactly who all got to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness" and who provided the means and support for them to accomplish that?
Also, I feel it is a political compromise first and foremost. Our country was founded by a mixture of adventurers seeking riches (capitalists we call them today, CEO types) and people expatriated as religious nutbags because they couldn't get along in their native lands. The Constitution was as much a document to protect one from the other as much as anything else. All parties feared the morality or lack thereof with their specific point of view in mind.
While I would gladly die if need be to protect that document by which we live, and while I truly love this country because of the life it provides me, I absolutely do not believe that any group of men has ever had all the right answers for a timeless truth.
And, to forestall the inevitable indictment, yes, I know I'm a nutbag, and no, I don't really expect any to agree with me; but, that's the great thing about the experiment called America. As long as we're not dangerous to others or the staus quo we can agree to disagree and go about our lives like every other day.
We need to remember the historical context within which it was written. No one could envision what the world was to rapidly become in the next 200 years, so it was written with the status quo of the times in mind. The very fact there are amendments indicate it is an imperfect document, and our founders realized that, which we tend to forget. While high-minded in many ways, it also has a tragic flaw in that "all equal men" did not include women or slaves. That paradox has to be understood to understand the Constitution. How equal was everyone if there were taxes to vote and many were excluded? Just exactly who all got to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness" and who provided the means and support for them to accomplish that?
Also, I feel it is a political compromise first and foremost. Our country was founded by a mixture of adventurers seeking riches (capitalists we call them today, CEO types) and people expatriated as religious nutbags because they couldn't get along in their native lands. The Constitution was as much a document to protect one from the other as much as anything else. All parties feared the morality or lack thereof with their specific point of view in mind.
While I would gladly die if need be to protect that document by which we live, and while I truly love this country because of the life it provides me, I absolutely do not believe that any group of men has ever had all the right answers for a timeless truth.
And, to forestall the inevitable indictment, yes, I know I'm a nutbag, and no, I don't really expect any to agree with me; but, that's the great thing about the experiment called America. As long as we're not dangerous to others or the staus quo we can agree to disagree and go about our lives like every other day.
fitzo
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2001
- Messages
- 6,648
micad said:Fitzo,
I suppose the next thing you're going to suggest is that women be given the right to vote..........Hey, quit...ouch...that hurts....hey gotta go...my wife's beating me again!
Mike
No vote, no change, no spike-heeled studded-leather thigh-highs, no whips, no beatings, no fun. Thankfully, men finally saw the light!