DraconisRex Posted August 5, 2002 Report Posted August 5, 2002 quote:Rex I hope the stars pan out...but as far as I can tell that is a ways out yet. I would endorse more space programs...they lead to all kinds of great advancements.... Oh, I know about the space program, and the idiots who have effectively shelved it. I get PO'ed about it, because about half of our new technologies started from the research to take man off-planet. By-products or no, the fact that we now have them make the whole thing worth it. A friend of mine once told me, "If you really want to make the drug problem go away, turn its trafficing into a business and let the government run it -- everything they touch goes bankrupt in very short order." I think we need to do the exact opposite to the space program -- let people run it. At present, what worries me is what Rockhound said about the shuttle they were riding on in Armageddon: quote:ÔÇ£You know we're sitting on 4 million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon, and a thing that has two hundred and seventy thousand moving parts, built by the lowest bidder!ÔÇØ I don't know why that bothers me....
CommanderJohnson Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: I watched the as a panel of experts rated the immediate threat of Iraq as low. At the same time it seems they believe that action now will be less costly then action later. HOWEVER, they agree that we HAVE the capacity to inspect for WMD with a high degree of success. We have a lot of options before we send in... well....me.Only problem with inspecting is he won't let us inspect. That path has already gone nowhere. What other options is it that we have? Sanctions dont work, talking doesn't work, and we're running out of time. quote: War is not a game. For you it is...now....maybe one day you'll wise up. Neither is a US city being wiped because people decided to try other options while Saddam was building WMDs. Your operating under the same anti-war thinking that led to 9/11 in the first place, at least now it's not as prevalent. Prior to 9/11, deploying troops was close to political suicide. Now, people are much more receptive to the idea. Yes, it's better to do other options, but in some situations it's best to send in the military. Iraq has proven over the past 12 years that there's no way we're going to get rid of the threat without military action. quote: This planet has limits. We exceed our share while people starve. If you can't see that fine....you have a whole crew of people who will back you up. On the other hand I have mine. We can see the lack of balance. We feel the need to care. We would rather see some overpaid loser take a pay cut then watch a part of the world go to hell.Yes, I agree that the United States has a huge share of resources while other people starve. I also see the lack of balance. I also feel sorry for all the starving people, etc. That is NOT justification for taking away resources from America and giving it to other countries. Charities and aid organizations are around for that, NOT the US government. At no point should the United States, and thus it's citizens, be forced into giving up their quality of life for other countries. Also, you need to realize that advancement takes resources. The United States has the infrastructure scientific advancement, and scientific advancements trickle down. By undermining America by making it accountable to the "world community" and redistributing resources, your focusing on the short term goal of stopping starvation in some third world country where the people will probably be killing each other next week, as opposed to finding a long term solution of ways to make enough food that no one will ever starve... quote: America is losing the moral right to lead. With every covert op or overt op that takes away from people and tries to maintain the status quo. I do not want to see one privileged nation under God able to succeed at the cost of others.Could you give an example or two of what your referring to? Any action in Iraq would be changing the status quo to get rid of a dictator that is a threat to all non-islamic states around the world (due to sales to Islamic terrorist groups). quote: If you cannot see the interconnect ness of life then you are missing what others have...and I'm sorry for you.I see it, it's just that it is much more valuable at the CURRENT TIME to keep the nation-state system. At some point in the future, when the world's philosophies, interests, and cultures are more similar, it would be beneficial for everyone to share the world and it's resources and for everyone to be accountable to some degree to everyone else. As it stands though, the United States is not like most other countries in the world. We have a constitution and government that is not oppressive, and the citizens of this country enjoy a large degree of freedom, and for the most part, luxury, because of it and its economic system. Any sort of "connectivity" with a "world community" notably takes away from that autonomy, and will hurt the United States due to diverging interests and philosophies. We are threatened by terrorism, we need to fight back. Other countries see the starving people and the innocents getting killed due to our attempts to eliminate terror and say we need to use other means. Those philosophies do not work together. quote:Then your very short sighted and can see no farther then your own needs. A condition that affects a lot here. It is too bad...one day you may realize how we all have the same needs and we can meet them for all. I see that this country is based on the idea of freedom and human rights for its citizens, and when we act around the world we do our best to bring those ideas to those countries. This seems like it's going to become a new socialism debate. Could you please explain what ACTIONS you are ADVOCATING? We've been talking sort of broadly here, and it'd be nice to have something tangible. quote: Amazing that you feel that we are the most advanced. While the founding principals of this nation were highly advanced for the time...time has moved forward. Yes we have gadgets by the score...if you can afford them. And we can wreck a county in unprecedented amount of time. This does not make a society advanced. This is dangerous in a place that is not. I'm talking in most ways. Militarily, scientifically, economically. The United States has the greatest potential out of any country in the world, it's just that we are too busy worrying about everyone else to actually HELP the world through that power.
Guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote: While the founding principals of this nation were highly advanced for the time...time has moved forward. You know nothing pisses me off more then some arrogant wannabe telling me that the constitution is old fashioned and is not up to modern society. Sorry, but the constitution is what brought us here, it is now being ignored because it is some sort of living breathing document. BS!!! The constitution was written to create a society where the individual was THE MOST important thing. We have rights!! Not rights given to us by some constitution, but by being HUMAN!! Your collectivist vision disgusts me!! I am an individual, I AM IMPORTANT, YOU ARE IMPORTANT, but the fact is, I have rights, and I will not give up those rights because it would be better for society. I live for myself and my family, NOT FOR MY COUNTRY, I own my labor, not the US government nor any other government. When a country threatens that freedom, we ATTACK AND DESTROY THAT THREAT, nothing less will do. Iraq and Saddam are a threat, and MUST be destroyed, along with a few others I could name. WHY? Because MY freedom is important, MY rights are important. The Federal government is there to assure that when I go to work, my right to life is not snuffed out by some fool with some Islamic dream of Jihad. MY rights are important, my families rights are important. THE INDIVIDUAL is important. If you don't want to go to war, then get out of the military. YOU volunteered to protect our country, YOU volunteered and took an oath to the constitution, if you feel that you are incapable of following through on that oath, then get the hell out of the military. I will write more later after I calm down, because I am just pissed!!
IceCold Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 The Constitution itself is outdated but the founding fathers added a brilliant clause to the document: Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Ammendments. This allows the fundamental ideals of the origional founders to be expanded and furthered as time demands for the people can ammend the constution without the federal government's support. Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)] Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)] Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)] Amendment IV [search and Seizure (1791)] Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)] Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)] Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)] Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)] Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)] Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)] Amendment XI [suits Against a State (1795)] Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)] Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)] Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)] Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870)] Amendment XVI [income Tax (1913)] Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913) Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)] Amendment XIX [Women's Right to Vote (1920) Amendment XX [Presidential Term and Succession (1933)] Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)] Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)] Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)] Amendment XXIV [Poll Tax (1964)] Amendment XXV [Presidential Succession (1967)] Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)] Amendment XXVII [Compensation of Members of Congress (1992)] All created as a result of public demand. The complete Constitution can never be outdated for it always open to expansion. [ 08-05-2002, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: IceCold ]
IceCold Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 BTW, The constitution can be read in full Here
CommanderJohnson Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 Oh yeah, Jaguar's right. The whole basis of my post was based on the premise that due to individual rights of citizens of America, they should never be forced to give up anything or lose anything for the "good of society".
Menchise Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 Boy am I glad I resigned from this thread before all Hell broke loose. More sleep for me.
DraconisRex Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: quote: While the founding principals of this nation were highly advanced for the time...time has moved forward. You know nothing pisses me off more then some arrogant wannabe telling me that the constitution is old fashioned and is not up to modern society. Sorry, but the constitution is what brought us here, it is now being ignored because it is some sort of living breathing document. BS!!! The constitution was written to create a society where the individual was THE MOST important thing. We have rights!! Not rights given to us by some constitution, but by being HUMAN!! Your collectivist vision disgusts me!! I am an individual, I AM IMPORTANT, YOU ARE IMPORTANT, but the fact is, I have rights, and I will not give up those rights because it would be better for society. I live for myself and my family, NOT FOR MY COUNTRY, I own my labor, not the US government nor any other government. When a country threatens that freedom, we ATTACK AND DESTROY THAT THREAT, nothing less will do. Iraq and Saddam are a threat, and MUST be destroyed, along with a few others I could name. WHY? Because MY freedom is important, MY rights are important. The Federal government is there to assure that when I go to work, my right to life is not snuffed out by some fool with some Islamic dream of Jihad. MY rights are important, my families rights are important. THE INDIVIDUAL is important. If you don't want to go to war, then get out of the military. YOU volunteered to protect our country, YOU volunteered and took an oath to the constitution, if you feel that you are incapable of following through on that oath, then get the hell out of the military. I will write more later after I calm down, because I am just pissed!!SC Jaguar: SAAAALLL-LLLLUUUUUTTTTEEEEE! quote:"Sure, I'll let them take away my freedoms, my way of life, and all that I love. Just as soon as they pry this rifle from my cold, dead fingers. But I'm taking as many as the bastards as I can with me!" - Author Unknown (But my sentimients exactly!)
DraconisRex Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Boy am I glad I resigned from this thread before all Hell broke loose. More sleep for me. Come on, Menchise... Back to the battlefield... I have a can of WMD-40 to let loose on you, and I just don't like people sneaking out in the middle of a battle...
Lotharr Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 *adjusts kevlar and moves towards hell* quote: Only problem with inspecting is he won't let us inspect. That path has already gone nowhere. What other options is it that we have? Sanctions dont work, talking doesn't work, and we're running out of time. Iraq is talking about letting inspectors back in. We should see where it goes. I am not optimistic. quote: Neither is a US city being wiped because people decided to try other options while Saddam was building WMDs. Your operating under the same anti-war thinking that led to 9/11 in the first place, at least now it's not as prevalent. Prior to 9/11, deploying troops was close to political suicide. Now, people are much more receptive to the idea. Yes, it's better to do other options, but in some situations it's best to send in the military. Iraq has proven over the past 12 years that there's no way we're going to get rid of the threat without military action. That may prove true. But we should always seek to understand the situation to the most achievable level possible. And we probably will lose a city. Not from a missile attack but from terrorist action. If we go it alone we risk making ourselves the prime target for people who see no other choice and find an enemy that violates international law. When we place our own needs above everyone else we alienate ourselves and paint the bulls eye. I believe that it is clear to most people and democratic nations that Saddam is a threat. Eventually what has to be done will also become clear. If we work with others to form a plan then we can achieve the same goal but not look like the bully. We have time. That is also clear. So we can do what has to be done with the help of others and save our soldiers and our money by having other pitch in. quote: Yes, I agree that the United States has a huge share of resources while other people starve. I also see the lack of balance. I also feel sorry for all the starving people, etc. That is NOT justification for taking away resources from America and giving it to other countries. Charities and aid organizations are around for that, NOT the US government. At no point should the United States, and thus it's citizens, be forced into giving up their quality of life for other countries. I never said take away resources. But fair trade is important. Developing nations need to have special consideration so they don't get raped in the free market. Growth and prosperity equal stability and development. That means less peace keeping and foreign aid. quote: Also, you need to realize that advancement takes resources. The United States has the infrastructure scientific advancement, and scientific advancements trickle down. By undermining America by making it accountable to the "world community" and redistributing resources, your focusing on the short term goal of stopping starvation in some third world country where the people will probably be killing each other next week, as opposed to finding a long term solution of ways to make enough food that no one will ever starve... Lots of countries have the infrastructure. Tell trickle down to Africa. They have the most AIDS patients anywhere. With democracy, economic growth, societal growth, birth rates fall. If we come together and assist this transformation we can control overpopulation. quote: Could you give an example or two of what your referring to? Any action in Iraq would be changing the status quo to get rid of a dictator that is a threat to all non-islamic states around the world (due to sales to Islamic terrorist groups). How about we give 3 billion annually to Israel to keep oppression up and running. The war in Vietnam. CONTELPRO Bombing Cambodia. Creating Bin Yahoo Creating Sadam Off the top of my head.... Status quo....world in fear. Arms building. Unilateral actions with lack of forethought. Systems that keep people from getting politically involved. Systems that incarcerate over two million citizens half of whom are nonviolent offenders.....all these things that do not have to be. This is a country for the people....only they have to remember that.... quote: I see it, it's just that it is much more valuable at the CURRENT TIME to keep the nation-state system. At some point in the future, when the world's philosophies, interests, and cultures are more similar, it would be beneficial for everyone to share the world and it's resources and for everyone to be accountable to some degree to everyone else. No problem here. National problems need national attention. Problems that can affect the entire world require global attention. quote: As it stands though, the United States is not like most other countries in the world. We have a constitution and government that is not oppressive, and the citizens of this country enjoy a large degree of freedom, and for the most part, luxury, because of it and its economic system. Any sort of "connectivity" with a "world community" notably takes away from that autonomy, and will hurt the United States due to diverging interests and philosophies. We are threatened by terrorism, we need to fight back. Other countries see the starving people and the innocents getting killed due to our attempts to eliminate terror and say we need to use other means. Those philosophies do not work together. Yes fight terror with terror. Brilliant. Studies indicate that a lack of political freedom coupled with minimal economic and social progress sets the stage for bomb toting terrorist/freedom fighters. And guess what the UN is all about: building democracy and lasting peace. We suffer from domestic terrorists that see something is wrong but don't understand how to fix it. They fight back. Then we lose lives and freedoms. Oppression is subjective. While most of us don't have to worry about men in black suits taking away family members away, we do have to worry about men in black suits stuffing there pockets with our money, laying off the workers that made it, building a climate of fear, and laughing to the bank. Further we have to look at our own free press. It is a business now. quote: I see that this country is based on the idea of freedom and human rights for its citizens, and when we act around the world we do our best to bring those ideas to those countries. This seems like it's going to become a new socialism debate. Could you please explain what ACTIONS you are ADVOCATING? We've been talking sort of broadly here, and it'd be nice to have something tangible We do our best.....some of our politicians. We should work as a global partner. We should build trust with our neighbors and allow democracy to lead the way. We should look to insuring our own institutions built for the people are not corporate owned and operated. We should be the leader in creating a time for humanity to grow. Realizing the benefits of democracy and social progress for all and how it will make this country a better place to live. Realize how we are but a piece of the greater whole and need to build along side with everyone else. We also have to remain vigilant in the face of danger. Be prepared to do our part....not force others to capitulate or face ruin. Unless all agree that is the only course. Off the top of my head. quote: I'm talking in most ways. Militarily, scientifically, economically. The United States has the greatest potential out of any country in the world, it's just that we are too busy worrying about everyone else to actually HELP the world through that power. Power is also unity. Peace brings prosperity. Power without thought leads to ruin. Jaquar: I will go to war if those are my orders. If that is the only way to peace so be it. However, I will speak my mind IAW with my freedoms granted under UCMJ. I will not attend political functions in uniform. Happy? Individual freedom is the core of democracy and human growth. Democracy is: 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community We are in a global community. I say again ~ I believe individual freedom is the heart and soul of a democracy~. But I know even in your family you have rules that serve to let everyone get along and grow. [ 08-06-2002, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote: Democracy is: 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community We are in a global community. I say again ~ I believe individual freedom is the heart and soul of a democracy~. But I know even in your family you have rules that serve to let everyone get along and grow. I will say this once and once ONLY. The UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! Read the constitution again, the founding fathers knew what a disaster a democracy would be!! You need to get out of your public school programming!! The United States is a REPUBLIC!!! There is a HUGE difference!!! We may have a global community, but WE ARE THE UNITED STATES, our needs and national security MUST ALWAYS come first!! PERIOD!!! All other considerations take a back seat to our national sovereignty!! All others take a back seat to our rights as guaranteed to us by our creator, some of those being spelled out in the Bill of Rights. If a treaty or agreement infringes on our rights, see the ICC, then that treaty is unconstitutional and MUST NOT be signed. I'll write more later!!
DraconisRex Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Democracy is: The UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! The United States is a REPUBLIC!!! There is a HUGE difference!!! Actually, it's a Democratic Republic, from what I was taught in college. Don't remember what the difference is, exactly. Slept since then (and just a hair during them...) By definition, a democracy is: quote:de┬Àmoc┬Àra┬Àcy Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s) n. pl. de┬Àmoc┬Àra┬Àcies Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. A political or social unit that has such a government. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. Majority rule. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. A Republic is: quote:re┬Àpub┬Àlic Pronunciation Key (r-pblk) n. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. A nation that has such a political order. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. A nation that has such a political order. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters. So, a Democratic Republic would be a combination of these...
Guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote: Actually, it's a Democratic Republic, from what I was taught in college. Don't remember what the difference is, exactly. Slept since then (and just a hair during them...) If the founding fathers heard you say that, their hair would stand on end. The United States is a Republic. A democracy is a will of the people MOB RULE!! A republic is a government where the people vote for their representative, and that representative is supposed to be the one that learns the issues, and is kept in check by the constitution. No matter HOW popular something is, if it is unconstitutional, the representative HAS to vote NO, no matter what his constituents say. This is why this country was not and is not a democracy. Problem is, that that is no longer true, as you can see from the MANY unconstitutional laws that have been passed. Democracy is a disaster in the making, and it is slowly destryoing our rule of law.... As Benjamin Franklin said as he came out of the convention, when asked what kind of government they had chosen, he said, and I quote. "A REPUBLIC, if you can keep it"
CommanderJohnson Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 Ok, I dont have enough time to screw around with quoting, so i'll go down Lotharr's post and then say something about Democracy vs Republic. Iraq was talking about letting inspectors back in under different terms than the original agreement. If accepted, that gives the impression that Iraq has some sort of bargaining power. Luckily, it won't be accepted, since the UN (not just the US), doesn't like the idea. You say we paint a target on ourselve,s but for who? No free country is going to attack us because of our actions, and no MORE countries are going to become hostile towards us because of an attack on Iraq. We are FREEING the Iraqi people, and that's not going to suddenly make France start sending suicide bombers to the US. Also, how can we work with others? They are saying "dont attack" and "Iraq isn't a threat", and "civilians will die". What exact PLAN is a good idea? There can't be compromise with two totally different ideas. Also, why should the US have to listen to others in THIS SCENARIO. Iraq is a threat to the US, if no one else believes it, that's their problem. We go in, for our own national security and interests, take out Saddam, free the people, create a republic/democracy. Then the people have POLITICAL FREEDOM (which you referenced later). Yes, the American people should be more compassionate to the plight of other nations. The United States government should NOT, however, MAKE the country give "special consideration" to developing nations. That's taking away individual rights of Americans and thus goes against the idea of this country. Honestly, I have no idea what causes the plights in under developed countries like Africa. It'd be nice if we all worked together to stop it, but it should NOT be government mandated, and it's possible that the reason why they dont develop is because there is nothing to develop in those countries. (resources) 3 billion to Israel isn't "keeping oppression up and running". The Israelis keep getting attacked, and have been for the past 50 years. The *UN* created Israel, then they kept getting invaded by every Arab nation nearby. We help them out. Then they start getting attacked by suicide bombers, and the fact they FIGHT BACK makes them oppressive? You go live in Jewish controlled areas of Israel, and see how long you advocate "Israel is being oppressive by fighting back". When you start seeing your friends and family afraid to go out in the street and then get blown up by some idiotic palestinian, you'd want the retaliation too. Also, if we didn't support Israel, it'd make us look bad by stepping out of a commitment to an ALLY (they almost always back us up), and it'd destablize the reason since it's highly possible Israel has nuclear weapons. (but we dont care...since they are our ALLY and they grant FREEDOM to their citizens) Vietnam we should have made up our mind and either didn't go in or gone in full force and won. That was a disaster, but only because we didn't go for a win 100%. CONTELPRO....not sure what that is. Bombing Cambodia...I've heard about it, but forgot the story behind it. Creating bin Laden was a good idea at the time in order to fight off the Russians (who were bad). Just because he then became a threat to us doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it. Again, creating Saddam was a good idea at the time. Now we just ahve to take him out. Ok, I need to go soon, but your one line that strikes me is that "lack of political freedom coupled with...". Yes, lack of political freedom causes problems. And, wow, all the terrorism supporting nations DONT HAVE POLITICAL FREEDOM, and it doesnt look like they are going to GET ANY unless we change their government, which is what we are going to do. I don't see any country with political freedom threatening or attacking the United States. Ok, i'm not going to get to democracy vs republic, but could you tell me what actual ACTIONS you advocate the US doing? I know you say "work together" but what exactly should the President/Congress do, and how will it help? How can we "be a leader"? Ok, really quick, the democracy vs republic argument doesn't really matter at this point. We have qualities of both (according to the definition), but in the end, it really doesn't matter. What matters is the United States was founded on the Constitution, and no action by the government should ever fall outside of the constitution, without an amendment, because otherwise it destroys the whole foundation the country was built on.
DraconisRex Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote:no action by the government should ever fall outside of the constitution, without an amendment, because otherwise it destroys the whole foundation the country was built on. And I thought the tollroads on federally-owned Interstates were Constitutional... NOT!!!! Even with an Amendment, I question the validity of several of our laws, starting with the 16th. I'd recommend a mild change to the Constitution that stated that no state-ratified law would become an Amendment without first being approved as constitutional by the Supreme Court (I think they do that, but not like what I'm thinking...) Any such changes to the Constitution should be ran as a test-run prior to becoming law, to see how the PEOPLE (Geeze, Senators, that's a CONCEPT!) react. Direct taxes, state taxes on excised (aka EXEMPT) items, etc., are not Constitutional. Even though the 16th Amendment gives them the power to bypass Apportionment and authorized direct taxes on income, it in no way authorized the existance of a seperate company (you read right) called the Internal Revenue Service (this is as bad as that EZ-Loan discussion elsewhere.) And certainly did not authorize said company to act as police and jury (images of Gestapo here) toward U.S. citizens without needing due course of law. The 4th Amendment is violated almost daily by government agencies in their course of their assigned (but not necessarily legal) duties. It reads: quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Has this been changed by the existance of the IRS? Police confiscate property daily from suspected (note that word) drug dealers, gun runners, etc. Excuse me, but unless they're not U.S. citizens, what constitutional right do they have to take propety that does not belong to them? And keep it, guilty or innocent? Without due course of law? I just have problems with agencies acting like that without constitutional laws to back them up. (The SS were patriots too...) And the pansy public just continues to take it.... I can understand seizure if a person is found guilty and a court order has been issued. Otherwise, that's no better than the Barbarians taking on the Romans.... Pillage, plunder, murder, rape... These sound familiar? [ 08-06-2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]
DraconisRex Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote:This is why this country was not and is not a democracy. Problem is, that that is no longer true, as you can see from the MANY unconstitutional laws that have been passed. Yeppers... And how many Special Interest Groups do you see lobby on a daily basis (most of them working for companies to pass laws that only benefit them)? I think we need an Electronic Town Hall, where all ballots, email to politicians, etc. are recorded in a permanent log that can't be changed, and is available for public inspection. How about this horsepoop where Congress isn't subject to search by National Security looking for Intelligence leaks? That is of the purest quality, and sounds like the whole bunch of them has something to hide.... Are they not American Citizens? (If not, leave office... and the country...)
DraconisRex Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote:The *UN* created Israel While it is true you are right, everyone seems to forget (or didn't know) that the Israel the U.N. created isn't the same bunch of people that were there in Biblical times. Most of them have gone into Egypt, Africa, Lybia, etc. It's kind of like that white American Hippie that's in my mother's Bible as Jesus -- that ain't Him, ain't never been, and ain't never gonna be. Our supposed "religious backing" of Israel is a flat farce -- the whole thing stinks like yesterday's diapers. For all intents and purposes, it's the same group of brothers fighting each other over the same God -- but none of them seem smart enough to realize it.
Lotharr Posted August 6, 2002 Report Posted August 6, 2002 quote: The United States is a REPUBLIC!!! nope quote: Actually, it's a Democratic Republic yup... quote: All other considerations take a back seat to our national sovereignty!! So if you believe national sovereignty is so important why is it cool for us to move on another country? Oh...national security. Ok. So we should be the final say on what is just when violating sovereignty (because we have the biggest...er...stick). Therefore, if say, China, thinks its national security is in jeopardy by us it should shoot nukes at us to stop this obvious threat. So...when individual nations decide what is fair and just they should be able to make any move they want to? OR.....should there be an outside binding force representing the will of all nations to decide what is just and fair? Especially a collection of democratic/republic nations? I don't know I'm just spit balling here.... quote: All others take a back seat to our rights as guaranteed to us by our creator, some of those being spelled out in the Bill of Rights. If a treaty or agreement infringes on our rights, see the ICC, then that treaty is unconstitutional and MUST NOT be signed Yup...and Allah has decided his people have had enough so hes gonna give em virgins. quote: If the founding fathers heard you say that, their hair would stand on end I am really curious what they would think....back then things were kinda cut and dry....white people were people and deserved LIBERTY! No taxation without representation....kinda like the Palestinians.....life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...as long as you didn't have red skin....my hair is on end.. quote: A democracy is a will of the people MOB RULE Where did Dragon Lady go anyway..... quote: This is why this country was not and is not a democracy. Problem is, that that is no longer true, as you can see from the MANY unconstitutional laws that have been passed. Why didn't you go into law? Or why don't you? quote: Iraq was talking about letting inspectors back in under different terms than the original agreement. If accepted, that gives the impression that Iraq has some sort of bargaining power. Luckily, it won't be accepted, since the UN (not just the US), doesn't like the idea Time will tell. quote: You say we paint a target on ourselve,s but for who? No free country is going to attack us because of our actions, and no MORE countries are going to become hostile towards us because of an attack on Iraq. We are FREEING the Iraqi people, and that's not going to suddenly make France start sending suicide bombers to the US. We could be setting loose a global nightmare. That is why we must act with others and think hard. Freedom brings peace. However, not all the world is free. Especially in that region. Doesn't seem like free countries are going to attack us. They step back and don't offer assistance and when things get crazy they don't offer aid. quote: Also, how can we work with others? They are saying "dont attack" and "Iraq isn't a threat", and "civilians will die". What exact PLAN is a good idea? There can't be compromise with two totally different ideas. Also, why should the US have to listen to others in THIS SCENARIO. Iraq is a threat to the US, if no one else believes it, that's their problem. We go in, for our own national security and interests, take out Saddam, free the people, create a republic/democracy. Then the people have POLITICAL FREEDOM (which you referenced later). It all seems so straight forward doesn't it? Why do international politics never end up being simple? quote: Yes, the American people should be more compassionate to the plight of other nations. The United States government should NOT, however, MAKE the country give "special consideration" to developing nations. That's taking away individual rights of Americans and thus goes against the idea of this country Get over the American ego and realize that their plight is ours. Or will it take some huge catastrophe to realize this. INVADE ALIEANS INVADE! If we win we will realize we are connected. MELT ICE CAPS!!! So when Florida (that brought us Gore...er...Bush) is gone we will see the global threat.... ETC ETC ETC... Your right...all the other countries should realize our selfness and act now....not. quote: Honestly, I have no idea what causes the plights in under developed countries like Africa. It'd be nice if we all worked together to stop it, but it should NOT be government mandated, and it's possible that the reason why they dont develop is because there is nothing to develop in those countries. (resources) Er...free market anyone? Like credit card debt on a national level. But there is something to develope.....people. This worlds only real reasource....in the end. quote: 3 billion to Israel isn't "keeping oppression up and running". The Israelis keep getting attacked, and have been for the past 50 years. The *UN* created Israel, then they kept getting invaded by every Arab nation nearby not getting into this here..post on the other thread and I'll meet you there. quote: Vietnam we should have made up our mind and either didn't go in or gone in full force and won. That was a disaster, but only because we didn't go for a win 100%. So China could have jumped in then the Soviet Union and we could just had us a brawl and finished it right there! The south didn't care. They were hungry. quote: CONTELPRO Counter intelligence program. The FBI's response to Americans demonstrating their Allah...er...god given right to assemble peacefully. Special agents would stamp cancelled on meeting signs. Infiltrate gatherings and cause disruption. Single out leaders of the so called peace movement and harass them until them were paranoid freaks....I won't say that the drugs didn't add to the effect. Fun stuff like that! quote: Bombing Cambodia...I've heard about it, but forgot the story behind it. Watch "The Killing Fields." quote: Creating bin Laden was a good idea at the time in order to fight off the Russians (who were bad). Just because he then became a threat to us doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it Tell that to the families of those in the twin tower.and this country in general. But I guess we had to make the hard choice. quote: Again, creating Saddam was a good idea at the time. Now we just ahve to take him out I'll think of you if I have to slap a piece of plastic on my driver chest after catching a round creating sucking chest wound..I will wait until he has a shallow inhale, (if he is not crying) and place the plastic material over the wound that is bubbling blood. I will then apply the bandage over the plastic. Next, I will roll SPC Curtiserthe casualty on his side and bark at PV2 Whitney to get on the radio to call for support. Realizing that PV2 Whitney just joined the guard, and is staring at theercasualty with shocked eyes, dropped jaw and frozen hands.I will bark again. As he moves I will reassure the casualty that everything is going to be ok. I take that back. I dont believe that I will be thinking of you. quote: Ok, I need to go soon, but your one line that strikes me is that "lack of political freedom coupled with...". Yes, lack of political freedom causes problems. And, wow, all the terrorism supporting nations DONT HAVE POLITICAL FREEDOM, and it doesnt look like they are going to GET ANY unless we change their government, which is what we are going to do. I don't see any country with political freedom threatening or attacking the United States. You are right. But WE don't have the right. A democratic/republic for world peace has that right. quote: Ok, i'm not going to get to democracy vs republic, but could you tell me what actual ACTIONS you advocate the US doing? I know you say "work together" but what exactly should the President/Congress do, and how will it help? How can we "be a leader"? All should join the green party silly. (they really should) Ok ok....short of that.... 1) Recognize a Palestinian state. 2) Cut funding for Israel 3) Donate 6 billion annually to rebuild Palestine. 4) Insure that Palestine has in its new constitution that is will not attack Israel. 5) Pass a !!U.N.!! resolution that puts any attack on Israel an attack on the world. 6) Install peace keepers 7) Watch as a shocked Arab world looks around and wonders why in the hell they live like they do when they could be living like a thriving democratic Muslim democracy like Palestine. See regime after regime topple. Ok maybe it won't be that clean. However it would allow us to act against $hit balls like Sadam easier. note: This is a very rough outline of a Michael Moore plan in the book "Stupid White Men"....a good read.
Guest Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote: All should join the green party silly. (they really should) Ok ok....short of that.... 1) Recognize a Palestinian state. 2) Cut funding for Israel 3) Donate 6 billion annually to rebuild Palestine. 4) Insure that Palestine has in its new constitution that is will not attack Israel. 5) Pass a !!U.N.!! resolution that puts any attack on Israel an attack on the world. 6) Install peace keepers 7) Watch as a shocked Arab world looks around and wonders why in the hell they live like they do when they could be living like a thriving democratic Muslim democracy like Palestine. See regime after regime topple. Ok maybe it won't be that clean. However it would allow us to act against $hit balls like Sadam easier. note: This is a very rough outline of a Michael Moore plan in the book "Stupid White Men"....a good read. Let's go over these one at a time, shall we? 1) Recognize a Palestinian state. Oh yeah, sure you betcha, hey, we recognize you, your terrorism WORKED GREAT!! See, so now everyone else who wants to use terrorism will!! We tried this, didn't work and will not work, my answer, move them back to where they came from, Jordan and Syria!! 2) Cut funding for Israel Won't happen, cannot happen, Israel is FAR too important politically, logistically and morally. 3) Donate 6 billion annually to rebuild Palestine. Been there, done that, most of the money has gone into terrorist coffers to kill Israeli civilians. 4) Insure that Palestine has in its new constitution that is will not attack Israel. It was supposed to, but they REFUSED!! What, you gonna force them? It would take attacking them!! which you feel shouldn't be done. Make up your mind... 6) Install peace keepers Been there, done that, UN peacekeepers that will step aside every time a terrorist wants to kill a Jew? Because that is exactly what will happen, ALWAYS DOES!!! 7) Watch as a shocked Arab world looks around and wonders why in the hell they live like they do when they could be living like a thriving democratic Muslim democracy like Palestine. See regime after regime topple. All they have to do is look at Israel, and Turkey, which is why BOTH countries are hated!! Dream on Lothar, time for you to take a history lesson. THESE HAVE ALL been tried, and they have all failed, MISERABLY. The only thing these animals understand is force of arms, they need to be trampled into the dust until their will to fight is gone, nothing less will stop the attacks. note: This is a very rough outline of a Michael Moore plan in the book "Stupid White Men"....a good read. THis man is a liberal HACK without a clue!! He doesn't have a clue what the constitution actually says. He's a moronic socialist, and will hopefully be laughed out of existence. If a majority of american have any sense that is. FEELINGS, NOTHING MORE THEN FEELINGS!! Not a logical cell in the man's brain!! [ 08-06-2002, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
DraconisRex Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 From the CIA World Factbook about the United States: quote:Country name: conventional long form: United States of America conventional short form: United States abbreviation: US or USA Government type: federal republic; strong democratic tradition Capital: Washington, DC While you are right about the United States being a republic, it is a democratic one. Hence, the term "democratic republic" used by both my American History and Political Science professors. It isn't a democracy -- I never said it was. I said, and meant, that it is a democratic republic. (For the record, a republican democracy has about the same chance of survival as a cow literally jumping over the moon...)
IceCold Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 Let me give you all a little history lesson, EVERY terrorist organization that began through a nation state as a means of gaining independence HAVE been successful. Ethiopia is an excellent example of such (The Mao Mao rebellion). Jumping from Israel's side to the Palestinian side would be reckless and impossible. Israel holds too much of an influence over the Government to permit such an act. In my opinion, any government founded on the basis of religion is a bad idea. "The last time we mixed religion and politics people were burned at the stake," ~Unknown [ 08-06-2002, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: IceCold ]
DraconisRex Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote:Originally posted by IceCold: Let me give you all a little history lesson, EVERY terrorist organization that began through a nation state as a means of gaining independence HAVE been successful. Ethiopia is an excellent example of such (The Mao Mao rebellion). Jumping from Israel's side to the Palestinian side would be reckless and impossible. Israel holds too much of an influence over the Government to permit such an act. In my opinion, any government founded on the basis of religion is a bad idea. "The last time we mixed religion and politics people were burned at the stake," ~UnknownIsrael is right in the middle of the conflict area, surrounded on all sides by Islamic states that would like nothing better than to see her fall. The PLO, Islamic Jihad, and most other terrorist groups want only peaceful destruction of what they believe is an abomination unto Allah. Historically, though, both religions are brethren to each other, which makes Cain and Able look like Mickey Mouse and Pluto, by comparison.
Guest $iLk Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 The United States is a Constitutional Repuplic. A Republic in which the members of the government are divided constitutionally and limited to certain extents of power - theoretically. Democracy is majority rule; i.e. three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. If you want the true outcome of a democracy, look no further than post civil war Southern States. The white majority kept power and the rights of the minority were trampled. This country provides safeguards against that. Democracy is an ugly word, if this were a democracy we would likely be at the mercy of the whim of mob rule.
IceCold Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 It truly is a shame that this country has become more concerned with sub groups than unity as a whole.
DraconisRex Posted August 7, 2002 Report Posted August 7, 2002 quote:Originally posted by $iLk: The United States is a Constitutional Repuplic. A Republic in which the members of the government are divided constitutionally and limited to certain extents of power - theoretically. Democracy is majority rule; i.e. three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. If you want the true outcome of a democracy, look no further than post civil war Southern States. The white majority kept power and the rights of the minority were trampled. This country provides safeguards against that. Democracy is an ugly word, if this were a democracy we would likely be at the mercy of the whim of mob rule.Once more, with passion.... Unless you can kill off all the democrats in the United States, it will be, it is, a DEMOCRATIC (note that that's not democracy) REPUBLIC with a Constitution. Period. So long as Democrats have any control of any portion of either the House or the Senate, then it isn't entirely a true Republic. Republicans only are authorized by definition to run a Republic. Any questions?!? As far as mob-rule is concerned, we are, in some ways, subject to that as well, especially in terms of our taxes. When was the last time you checked to see what portion of your taxes were paying for the have-nots in the food stamp line? Without a democratic element, I can guarantee you that Welfare would not exist to the extent it does now. I'm not complaining, but I am telling you that the United States is more like the USSR used to be before the wall fell in a lot of ways... [ 08-06-2002, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now