****hed, you forgot these "eminent" politicians' words....dummy!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S.Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that the deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal,murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents
a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry ! (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't... you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

Warmest regards,
John
"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
David T. Hall Jr. wrote:
No, Hitler (Bush) basically told them that Germans (American
Christians) were

superior, gave them someone else to

blame (terrorists)

(deflection) for their problems, and promised

to "fix" it. When you tell people what they want
to hear, it's not hard to gain their support.


You not only bought this bull**** lock, stock and barrel, you inhaled it
faster than Bush did cocaine at Yale.
-
(The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have
papers to travel around in the US. )

Surely you have to realize just how

exaggeratedly absurd that is.


Surely you don't realize how clueless you are. If you kept up to date on
your own parties activity, you will find the proposal of a national ID
card is not only very real, but a probability,,,all in the name of
protection.

Besides, we already have "papers". It's called

a driver's license.


He said "national".,,all across America, not issued by the state, but
issued by the feds.

(Members in Congress want even more
rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give
up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even call
the law the "Patriot Act". )

Well, here's the deal. If we have total freedom

and civil liberties, it becomes next to

impossible to effectively protect us against

outside infiltrators.



Exactly. And this country has always operated that way. Freedon does not
come without its price.

So you have to make a choice.


The choice has already been made. Bush seeks to change it.

Either certain freedoms need to be modified or

.curtailed in order to make our borders more

secure,

make living and travel throughout our

country more difficult for non-citizens, and

obtaining forged documents by hostiles much

tougher, or we have to learn to accept that the
.price of our open freedom might likely be a

large scale terrorist attack.




In the first place, that you attempt but fail to make a lucid connection
between cracking down on "terrorists" and curbing our rights is a highly
laughable offense. People like you actually believe this ****.

You cannot realistically expect to have both

total freedom and total protection.



Correct. This country chose total freedom. Bush is trying to do away
with it.

If you do not want the government taking

steps to protect us from terrorists,


The steps have proved fruitless. We lost rigts and attacks were still
not prevented,



have no right to complain when they attack.


Keeping with that incompetent mindset, if you are not serving in the
war, or have no family there, or have never served, you have no right to
complain about those who do and say the war in Iraq is wrong. Ludicrous.


As long as they use our own laws against us,

we remain vulnerable.



Open border policy and the freedom we enjoy has always made us
vulnerable. That's the price we pay for the freedom we enjoy, it's a
tradeoff risk we take.

Most people are willing to give up some

freedoms in order to gain better security.


Dead wrong. Most people still believe in our founding forefathers
statements and still apply them today. Franklin said "Those who would
sacrifice personal rights in order to obtain temporary security, deserve
neither"

But that does not mean that we are "becoming

.a fascist state". As long as we can continue to

elect our representatives, that will not happen.

GW Bush will not be the president 4 years

from now, and there will be a new leader for

us to blame for all the trouble we're having.



And since you know it's going to be a democrat, you are already speaking
of such blame 3 years away, but still suffer gastronomic pain when the
Bush failures are illustrated.



(IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In
fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One
more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil
liberties. )

I'd rather lose some civil liberties than worry

that my family could be wiped from the planet

.in one fell swoop.


As Franklin said, you deserve neither.


Besides, some people take advantage of

certain civil liberties in order to engage in

activities that are either illegal or immoral.



(snip)

Have at it, David. You're certified.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

Yes, I very much think groups in Iraq and Saudi Arabia financed
terrorism--in the case of the Saudis'--still do--and it "overlooked" by
those in control there... if and when we find them as long as someone
assures they end up dead I will be quite happy...
If they simply wish to retain different views and are peaceful--leave 'em
alone...

Warmest regards,
John
"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (John Smith)
James:
If you haven't noticed, we ARE right in the

middle of the right place to find enemies...



We can find "enemies" all over the globe. Iraq was no threat to the US
and they were not connected to 911.


if you don't think there are tightly knit groups

of radicals right in Iraq and most of the other

surrounding countries, think again...


And if you think Iraq had anything to do with 911, think again.

better to

fight them there than here...


When do we invade N Korea? Iran? Singapore? Malaysia? China?


at least the gauntlet has been thrown down

on foreign soil and the battles and war can

take place there...


Bush tossed the gauntlet in the wrong country..meanwhile, the real
culprits responsile for 911, like BL, are laughing their collective
asses off at American's like you who believe the chicanery of Bush and
think 911 had anything to do with Iraq.

life goes on as usual here, children attend

school, retired people vacation and there are

NO suicide bombings or terrorist

attacks--there is enough there to busy their

hands... let the war stay there...


Right....warmongerers like you are all for it as long as it doesn't
affect you or your family.

Warmest regards,

John

People like you like to employ the ostrich syndrome and hope others
follow suit. You can deny deny deny, but just because you weren't aware
of any attacks on US soil after 911 doesn't mean they did not occur.
Bush not failed to prevent these attacks with the raping of our civil
liberties, he can't even find the culprits. Hell, he swore up and down
on national telivision that BL was his number one priority and he would
not rest until he was captured...well, somewhere along the line Bush
decided (all by himself) that BL was no longer the priority. In fact, we
know BL was responsible for 911, but for some really odd reason, he is
no longer THE priority, Bush lied...again, and only to get what he
really wanted..Hussein,,,and that was for trying to kill his daddy. Now
that Powell's words are coming true to Bush (you will OWN Iraq and their
people, and all their problems for years to come), Bush is like a fish
out of water....and its people like you that are gasping for air.

Well, I agree, we need a militia to protect ourselves from such as bush and
kerry--do you think the power and money is going to allow anyone into office
who is for the common citizen--hell no, graft, corruption and bribes rule
this gov't--I think that is quite obvious... they play us for fools--this is
not a "two party" system--that is all a farce, little has changed from when
clinton signed NAFTA and sold missle secrets to the chinese for bribes...

We are in deep chit here!

John
"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
ass.wizard wrote:

So then, Bush is our enemy-


When a president is sworn in, he swears to uphold and protect the
Constitution. As soon as he was sworn in, he launched an attack on parts
of it. Nowhere in the oath does it say "And swear to uphold the
Constitution EXCEPT in matters of.....(insert republican lunacy here)".
Yes, Bush is the enemy of the people of the United States. Yesterday's
poll showed 61% of the American people now believe Bush does NOT have
the best interests of the country at heart..but I find solace in those
stats. People need a wakeup a call in addition to the government they
deserve.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.


Dave, you're a friggin' loon.

I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.



You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.


Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get
it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it:

Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it.


This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.

You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,

Try to refuse to pay your taxes, cry fire in a crowded theater,
attempt to approach an elected official without permission, posses
contraband, or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious.

Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government. Some of
your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a
license).


etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.


The USA is NOT a democracy

No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary
rule.

-- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned.

You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you)
knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing
wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins.

If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't
understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist. Reality is a concept
that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment
clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are
the words separation of church and state in there.




Either you are for the Constitution or you are against it. So it's
time for you to make a choice, Dave -- are you an American or not?

I am for it. But what you are is open for questioning.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

First we would have to vote on who they are allowed to run, I don't see
anyone there right now I would vote for, not hillary, not kerry, not even
the congressman or senator who is "mine", it feels like someone else put him
in office (in deed the largest developer here donates to his campaign and my
elected official are bending over for him constantly--and the issues are
somehow ever blocked from getting onto the ballot to be reversed)--he has
done nothing for me... hope he has helped someone somewhere... what has your
congressman done for you?

John

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.


Dave, you're a friggin' loon.

I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.



You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.


Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get
it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it:

Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it.


This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.

You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,

Try to refuse to pay your taxes, cry fire in a crowded theater,
attempt to approach an elected official without permission, posses
contraband, or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious.

Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government. Some of
your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a
license).


etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.


The USA is NOT a democracy

No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary
rule.

-- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned.

You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you)
knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing
wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins.

If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't
understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist. Reality is a concept
that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment
clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are
the words separation of church and state in there.




Either you are for the Constitution or you are against it. So it's
time for you to make a choice, Dave -- are you an American or not?

I am for it. But what you are is open for questioning.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:14:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:57:10 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
So, here we have a double edged sword. We live in a world economy,
with companies from all over the world competing for market share. So,
what's a U.S. based corporation to do? Should it:

A. Keep its U.S. work force in order to altruistically keep the
American work force employed?

B. Outsource to a foreign country where labor and overhead is much
cheaper?


The answer is A because loyalty must be earned, and American's have a
very good long-term memory.

Even if the American company is forced out of business by cheaper
foreign competitors?


Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap
foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now
at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in
direct competition from foreign companies.


American workers could be easily protected with import tariffs; but
Bush's butt has been kissed (and licked, sucked, wiped and powdered)
by corporations seeking cheap labor, so he is pushing for open-border
trade agreements with third-world countries.

Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not
help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the
price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American
consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to
compensate, and you now have inflation. Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE
consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign
markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will
wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to
match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would
likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on
theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then.


Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product
just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is
squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the
costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best
bargains in everything we buy.


Because the taxes are on the Americans, not on the import corporations
(e.g, Walmart, aka 'China Inc.') where they should be.

See above.



And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more
for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product?


Depends on where that 'foreign' product was made.

Does it matter? If it's cheaper, they will buy it.



What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive
edge?


Any US corp that chooses to cut American jobs instead of lobbying for
import tariffs against foreign competitors is, in the most tactful of
terms, economically nearsighted.

So, then, you would rather an American company keep it's American
workforce in a patriotic corporate suicide attempt, as it folds under
unmatchable competition from abroad? What if all US companies fold or
move their corporate headquarters offshore? Then what?


What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China?
Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about
ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates.

Yes, inflation is a very real fear.


No, it's not. It's a hope. Inflation, in a free market economy, is an
'equalizer' -- it's an effect of a surplus of cash in circulation,
which usually ends up in the hands of those who need it the most.
Historically, inflation hurts the rich and benefits the poor, which is
something you never hear from the "left-wing, liberally biased media".

Well that's true to an extent. Those who invest their money in fixed
rate securities (retired people) will earn more interest, while those
seeking to borrow, will pay more. But the rich are who generally
create the jobs that the rest of us work at. If inflation cuts into
their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make
other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins.


But when the standard of living
equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture
overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic
manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also
be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as
much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price.
That's free market 101.


You obviously failed Economics 101, and probably never took Macro- or
Micro-Economics.

Sigh. You can't get through a post without an insult can you Mr
Bartender?


Cheap labor will always be available in any country that's poor in
natural resources. There are many, and that's not going to change
anytime soon. The fact that Iraq's new "government" refused to allow
labor unions (a law imposed by Saddam) should be a good indication as
to where the next market for cheap labor will be found.

But Iraq is not poor in natural resources.

You can't get something for nothing.

You don't know just how much truth there is in that statement.


Damn straight. Freedom isn't free. Other people paid for your
freedoms, Dave. Maybe you should take the time to try and understand
why.

I know that freedom is not unlimited.


In time the US will suffer. Prepare for
China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US'
economy .

Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So
what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it?


Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand
that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents
of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations.

Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.


Dave, you're a friggin' loon.

I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.


Zeti-Reticuli?


You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.


Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get
it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it:

Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it.


This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.


Wrong. The majority of -voters- choose. And the person they choose is
not the "winner", as if being a public official was some sort of
prize. It's not. It's a job. And their job is to work in the best
interests of -ALL- their constituents, not just those that voted them
into office.

And just for your information, your right to vote is granted by the
state, not guaranteed by the Constitution. There have been many
efforts to add a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every
citizen the right to vote, but each attempt has been blocked by the
Republicans. That's just another tidbit you never hear about from the
"left-wing liberally biased news media".


You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,

Try to refuse to pay your taxes,


Now -there's- a great idea -- demand that the goverment protect your
country and your freedoms then squirm away when the bill comes.


cry fire in a crowded theater,


Are you so uneducated that you don't even know where that phrase
originated?


attempt to approach an elected official without permission,


Attempt to enter my house without permission and see what happens.


posses
contraband,


Contraband, by definition, is illegal.


or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious.


You can blame Bush's Patriot Act for that one.


Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government.


Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances
where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others.
How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave?


Some of
your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a
license).


The lack of a driver's license doesn't prevent you from travelling
freely, just not with a motor vehicle. Regardless, you can drive a
motor vehicle without a license if you are on private property. Kids
do it all the time at the go-kart tracks. Farmers do it all the time
in their fields. Need more examples of your ignorance?


etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.


If your guy loses on election day, you don't lose the rights and
freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution.


The USA is NOT a democracy

No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary
rule.

-- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned.

You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you)
knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing
wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins.


When you find a majority that is willing to give up the Constitution
then you let me know.


If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't
understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist.


So were the founding fathers.


Reality is a concept
that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment
clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are
the words separation of church and state in there.


You tried that spin once before and it didn't work. Why would you
think it's going to work if you use it a second time?


Either you are for the Constitution or you are against it. So it's
time for you to make a choice, Dave -- are you an American or not?

I am for it.


Excellent. Now learn something about it. For starters, try "The
Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and its Application" by
Thomas James Norton. This book should be kept on your desk right next
to your barely-used dictionary and over-worked computer.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

.... on gay marriage, they can do anything they want, but can't marry in my
church which holds gays to be an abomination (I don't share anything in
common with them either so they are best with others of their type, as I am
with mine) however, NO tax breaks for them, NO spousal benefits paid by the
gov't, and NO other hidden costs to taxpayers to support their "lifestyle."
Then let them "marry" all they want...

Regards,
John

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.


Dave, you're a friggin' loon.

I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.


Zeti-Reticuli?


You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.


Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get
it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it:

Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it.


This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.


Wrong. The majority of -voters- choose. And the person they choose is
not the "winner", as if being a public official was some sort of
prize. It's not. It's a job. And their job is to work in the best
interests of -ALL- their constituents, not just those that voted them
into office.

And just for your information, your right to vote is granted by the
state, not guaranteed by the Constitution. There have been many
efforts to add a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every
citizen the right to vote, but each attempt has been blocked by the
Republicans. That's just another tidbit you never hear about from the
"left-wing liberally biased news media".


You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,

Try to refuse to pay your taxes,


Now -there's- a great idea -- demand that the goverment protect your
country and your freedoms then squirm away when the bill comes.


cry fire in a crowded theater,


Are you so uneducated that you don't even know where that phrase
originated?


attempt to approach an elected official without permission,


Attempt to enter my house without permission and see what happens.


posses
contraband,


Contraband, by definition, is illegal.


or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious.


You can blame Bush's Patriot Act for that one.


Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government.


Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances
where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others.
How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave?


Some of
your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a
license).


The lack of a driver's license doesn't prevent you from travelling
freely, just not with a motor vehicle. Regardless, you can drive a
motor vehicle without a license if you are on private property. Kids
do it all the time at the go-kart tracks. Farmers do it all the time
in their fields. Need more examples of your ignorance?


etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.


If your guy loses on election day, you don't lose the rights and
freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution.


The USA is NOT a democracy

No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary
rule.

-- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned.

You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you)
knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing
wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins.


When you find a majority that is willing to give up the Constitution
then you let me know.


If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't
understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist.


So were the founding fathers.


Reality is a concept
that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment
clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are
the words separation of church and state in there.


You tried that spin once before and it didn't work. Why would you
think it's going to work if you use it a second time?


Either you are for the Constitution or you are against it. So it's
time for you to make a choice, Dave -- are you an American or not?

I am for it.


Excellent. Now learn something about it. For starters, try "The
Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and its Application" by
Thomas James Norton. This book should be kept on your desk right next
to your barely-used dictionary and over-worked computer.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:05:25 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:14:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:57:10 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
So, here we have a double edged sword. We live in a world economy,
with companies from all over the world competing for market share. So,
what's a U.S. based corporation to do? Should it:

A. Keep its U.S. work force in order to altruistically keep the
American work force employed?

B. Outsource to a foreign country where labor and overhead is much
cheaper?


The answer is A because loyalty must be earned, and American's have a
very good long-term memory.

Even if the American company is forced out of business by cheaper
foreign competitors?


Obviously you didn't read the entire post before starting your reply.


Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap
foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now
at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in
direct competition from foreign companies.


American workers could be easily protected with import tariffs; but
Bush's butt has been kissed (and licked, sucked, wiped and powdered)
by corporations seeking cheap labor, so he is pushing for open-border
trade agreements with third-world countries.

Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not
help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the
price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American
consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to
compensate, and you now have inflation.


Wrong. Import tariffs drive up the cost of -imported- products, which
in turn encourages -domestic- production and manufacturing. The prices
will go up, as will the wages; but the overall effect is that the
domestic economy is stimulated, which more than compensates for any
short-term dips. And for the record, it also reduces the amount paid
for welfare since more people are working.


Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE
consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign
markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will
wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to
match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would
likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on
theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then.


Wrong on both counts. American innovation and technology is, and has
always been, one of the primary exports of this country. Stimulate the
industrial base and you stimulate people and businesses to be more
innovative (instead of using the word as an advertising gimmick).


Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product
just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is
squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the
costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best
bargains in everything we buy.


Because the taxes are on the Americans, not on the import corporations
(e.g, Walmart, aka 'China Inc.') where they should be.

See above.



And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more
for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product?


Depends on where that 'foreign' product was made.

Does it matter? If it's cheaper, they will buy it.


I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't
you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is
often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your
brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations?


What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive
edge?


Any US corp that chooses to cut American jobs instead of lobbying for
import tariffs against foreign competitors is, in the most tactful of
terms, economically nearsighted.

So, then, you would rather an American company keep it's American
workforce in a patriotic corporate suicide attempt, as it folds under
unmatchable competition from abroad? What if all US companies fold or
move their corporate headquarters offshore? Then what?


What if all US companies lobbied for import tariffs?


What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China?
Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about
ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates.

Yes, inflation is a very real fear.


No, it's not. It's a hope. Inflation, in a free market economy, is an
'equalizer' -- it's an effect of a surplus of cash in circulation,
which usually ends up in the hands of those who need it the most.
Historically, inflation hurts the rich and benefits the poor, which is
something you never hear from the "left-wing, liberally biased media".

Well that's true to an extent. Those who invest their money in fixed
rate securities (retired people) will earn more interest, while those
seeking to borrow, will pay more. But the rich are who generally
create the jobs that the rest of us work at.


Wrong. The failure of Reaganomics proved that people create their own
jobs when the rich get too greedy. They do so out of necessity.


If inflation cuts into
their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make
other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins.


It really doesn't matter since the US is no longer a free-market
economy -- the Federal Reserve has tight (and probably illegal)
control over the money supply and keeps the inflation rate down
artificially.


But when the standard of living
equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture
overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic
manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also
be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as
much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price.
That's free market 101.


You obviously failed Economics 101, and probably never took Macro- or
Micro-Economics.

Sigh. You can't get through a post without an insult can you Mr
Bartender?


Nope. Can you get through a post without a demonstration of your
ignorance and lack of education?


Cheap labor will always be available in any country that's poor in
natural resources. There are many, and that's not going to change
anytime soon. The fact that Iraq's new "government" refused to allow
labor unions (a law imposed by Saddam) should be a good indication as
to where the next market for cheap labor will be found.

But Iraq is not poor in natural resources.


But Iraq's natural resources are only partially owned and controlled
by Iraq. They were fully owned by Iraq under Saddam, but after his
overthrow many international conglomerates (mostly US and UK oil
companies, most of which include the Bush family as stockholders)
invoked claims that existed prior to Saddam. The people of Iraq are
going to see hardly any of the money that comes from their own
resources -- instead it's going right into the pockets of oil company
fat-cats.


You can't get something for nothing.

You don't know just how much truth there is in that statement.


Damn straight. Freedom isn't free. Other people paid for your
freedoms, Dave. Maybe you should take the time to try and understand
why.

I know that freedom is not unlimited.


Freedom isn't free. Period. Quit being a dumbass and learn why.


In time the US will suffer. Prepare for
China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US'
economy .

Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So
what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it?


Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand
that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents
of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations.

Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions.


Well gee, Dave, what a novel idea.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Oh yeah, I forgot...
They can take the money out of monopoly games, pretend it is real, and spend
it among themselves to... just not in real stores... anything which makes
'em happy--it is their right in a free country...

Warmest regards,
John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... on gay marriage, they can do anything they want, but can't marry in my
church which holds gays to be an abomination (I don't share anything in
common with them either so they are best with others of their type, as I
am with mine) however, NO tax breaks for them, NO spousal benefits paid by
the gov't, and NO other hidden costs to taxpayers to support their
"lifestyle." Then let them "marry" all they want...

Regards,
John

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.


Dave, you're a friggin' loon.

I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.


Zeti-Reticuli?


You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.


Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get
it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it:

Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it.


This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.


Wrong. The majority of -voters- choose. And the person they choose is
not the "winner", as if being a public official was some sort of
prize. It's not. It's a job. And their job is to work in the best
interests of -ALL- their constituents, not just those that voted them
into office.

And just for your information, your right to vote is granted by the
state, not guaranteed by the Constitution. There have been many
efforts to add a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every
citizen the right to vote, but each attempt has been blocked by the
Republicans. That's just another tidbit you never hear about from the
"left-wing liberally biased news media".


You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,

Try to refuse to pay your taxes,


Now -there's- a great idea -- demand that the goverment protect your
country and your freedoms then squirm away when the bill comes.


cry fire in a crowded theater,


Are you so uneducated that you don't even know where that phrase
originated?


attempt to approach an elected official without permission,


Attempt to enter my house without permission and see what happens.


posses
contraband,


Contraband, by definition, is illegal.


or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious.


You can blame Bush's Patriot Act for that one.


Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government.


Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances
where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others.
How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave?


Some of
your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a
license).


The lack of a driver's license doesn't prevent you from travelling
freely, just not with a motor vehicle. Regardless, you can drive a
motor vehicle without a license if you are on private property. Kids
do it all the time at the go-kart tracks. Farmers do it all the time
in their fields. Need more examples of your ignorance?


etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.


If your guy loses on election day, you don't lose the rights and
freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution.


The USA is NOT a democracy

No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary
rule.

-- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned.

You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you)
knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing
wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins.


When you find a majority that is willing to give up the Constitution
then you let me know.


If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't
understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist.


So were the founding fathers.


Reality is a concept
that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment
clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are
the words separation of church and state in there.


You tried that spin once before and it didn't work. Why would you
think it's going to work if you use it a second time?


Either you are for the Constitution or you are against it. So it's
time for you to make a choice, Dave -- are you an American or not?

I am for it.


Excellent. Now learn something about it. For starters, try "The
Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and its Application" by
Thomas James Norton. This book should be kept on your desk right next
to your barely-used dictionary and over-worked computer.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.
*****

First I never stated that our system was the only way to go. While it
has its problems, the good of our system overrides the bad. What I
have stated is that if the citizens do not stand in vigilance of their
elected officials this government will degrade into Facism or a
dictatorship.

Second since I vote, I have the right to complain whether you like it
or not.

Third if I don't like what the elected officials are doing I DO VOTE
against them.

Fourth we have a Constitution to protect the Rights of the Minority
and not the Rights of the Majority. The Majority never needs
protection.

Fifth I don't ask that everything that I want to be enacted. I do
waccept the rule of the majority. I do expect the majority to hear the
voice of the minority and compromise.

james

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:


I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.
*******

I am not a conspiracy nut. All you have to do is follow the money
trail and it becomes as obvious as the nose on your face that Congress
has been influienced by "money" Senators and Congressmen don't need
warchests of millions of dollars but for one thing, to get relected.
Who contributes to these warchests? Mostly Corporate America and
Foreign Global Companies.

Look at the legislation passed. Who does it favor? Why does Bush and
key republicans want to weaken EPA laws? To help companies that emmit
pollutants. Why? Because the costs to add additional equiptment to
meet the standards impact profits. Lower profits means that either
companies relocate outside the US or pass on the increased costs to
consumers. Yes companies use blackmail to get legislation in their
favor. They don't always get what they want and at times they get none
of what they want. But if y ou think that Corporate America does not
have any influence on Congress then I suggest that you come out of
Wonderland and quit chasing rabbits.

james

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.
*****

Actually a majority of the voters that vote. In reality, there has not
been a president elected in the past 50yrs with a majority of eligable
voters. The 1996 election had only 49.6% of voting age population
turnout to vote. IN 2000 it was 50.1%. In 1960 over 65% of Voting age
Population voted. Voter turnouts of all voting age population in
national elections have dropped steadily since 1964.

Basically GW Bush was elected with about 30% of all voting age
population in this country.

If you want to research more try www.fec.gov. That is the Federal
Elections Commision.

james

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.
******

Hello it is not tough cookies. The preisident does not have carte
blanche to just crush those that did not vote for him into the dirt.

G W Bush is not the president of republicans. He is the president of
all political parties. Any president has to realize that he must weigh
the needs of all the people of this country and not beholden to his
party. That is where the partizen politics have degraded in this
country over the past 40 yrs.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:16:32 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Zeti-Reticuli?
******

I think he meant Zeta Reticuli. A binary star system in the
Constelation Reticulum. Composed of two stars Zeta1 and Zeta2. Both
are 5th magnitude stars and are visable from the most extreme southern
parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

james

On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:49:42 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

James:

If you haven't noticed, we ARE right in the middle of the right place to
find enemies... if you don't think there are tightly knit groups of
radicals right in Iraq and most of the other surrounding countries, think
again... better to fight them there than here... at least the gauntlet has
been thrown down on foreign soil and the battles and war can take place
there... life goes on as usual here, children attend school, retired people
vacation and there are NO suicide bombings or terrorist attacks--there is
enough there to busy their hands... let the war stay there...

Warmest regards,
John
****

Personally I do not like the idea of fighting radicals like the
insurgents of Iraq on their home land. Not a good strategy. They will
play the game of attritian. They will die to remove us. The only way
to fight that kind of fight was lost two years ago. We should have
pacified the country and we did not. Now we have to fight a war in
which the enemy refuses to show their face.

They are willing to sacrifice bodies to kill us. Each one of them that
dies is a hero and a martyr. In reality we can never truly win in
Iraq. The best that we now can hope for is a situation where both
sides will grow so tired of fighting that they wish to quit. Five
years from now Iraq will be an Islamic state very much like Iran.
Irregardless of what we do now. I predict that the democracy that we
set up, will not last beyond five yrs.

james

Well, a cleaver man (group) could escalate it, wipe 'em out and be back to
business... it has been done before--I think of this time period as giving
them a chance--frankly, I think that time has just about ended, I am ready
for a more aggressive stance...

Warmest regards,
John

"james" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:49:42 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

James:

If you haven't noticed, we ARE right in the middle of the right place to
find enemies... if you don't think there are tightly knit groups of
radicals right in Iraq and most of the other surrounding countries, think
again... better to fight them there than here... at least the gauntlet
has
been thrown down on foreign soil and the battles and war can take place
there... life goes on as usual here, children attend school, retired
people
vacation and there are NO suicide bombings or terrorist attacks--there is
enough there to busy their hands... let the war stay there...

Warmest regards,
John
****

Personally I do not like the idea of fighting radicals like the
insurgents of Iraq on their home land. Not a good strategy. They will
play the game of attritian. They will die to remove us. The only way
to fight that kind of fight was lost two years ago. We should have
pacified the country and we did not. Now we have to fight a war in
which the enemy refuses to show their face.

They are willing to sacrifice bodies to kill us. Each one of them that
dies is a hero and a martyr. In reality we can never truly win in
Iraq. The best that we now can hope for is a situation where both
sides will grow so tired of fighting that they wish to quit. Five
years from now Iraq will be an Islamic state very much like Iran.
Irregardless of what we do now. I predict that the democracy that we
set up, will not last beyond five yrs.

james

From: (John=A0Smith)
Yes, I very much think groups in Iraq and

Saudi Arabia financed terrorism--

No one ever said otherwise. In fact, you can add South America, China,
Malaysia, Singapore, Chad, Sudan, Phillipines, Central America, France,
Russia, Ireland, N Korea,
to your revelation, but what you are unable, is establish or cite a link
between Iraq and 911.
For that, you need look to BL, Afghanistan, and yes, Saudi Arabia..


in the case of the Saudis'--still do--and it

"overlooked" by those in control there... if and

when we find them as long as someone

assures they end up dead I will be quite

happy...



Well, Bush swore on national tv in front of the entire country BL was
responsible for 911 and he was our number one priority and that he would
not rest until he was captured and that
he would spare no expense to captre him and would hunt him down to the
"four corners" of the earth if necessary. Approximately a year later,
Bush flip-flopped, claiming he no longer cared about BL and even said he
was no longer a priority. So, you -have- been "assured" by Bush, but as
he illustrates, it was lipservice and menat absolutely nothing.


If they simply wish to retain different views and
are peaceful--leave 'em alone...


There are dozens of countries who do not share your definition of what
constitutes "peaceful". When do we invade?


Warmest

regards,

John


Backatcha cha cha*

*(slight echo you love so much)

Dave Hall Said:
"Actually Hitler gained his power after Paul Von Hindenburg died in
1934. Before that Hitler was just a chancellor and had been unable to
beat Hindenburg in the last election. So in many ways, fate was
responsible for Hilter's chance at power. "


Wrongo. Hitler's "emergency" powers were granted by Hindenburg in 1933
as a response to the Reichstag fire.

The German parliment building was torched and the Nazi's blamed
communist agitators, said that the country needed stronger leadership
to beat off attempts by the communists to take it over, etc.

Actually, the Nazis themselves did the torching, specifically to
agitate public opinion in favor of Nazi policies by blaming
anti-government forces for the deed.

Hitler said that Germany was being threatened, the people saw the
Reichstag fire as proof. Hindenburg gave in and let the Nazis run the
show.

Hitler would have blown a goat at the Berlin Zoo to get that power...a
little arson was definitely only the beginning if he had not gotten it.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:00:08 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

First we would have to vote on who they are allowed to run, I don't see
anyone there right now I would vote for, not hillary, not kerry, not even
the congressman or senator who is "mine", it feels like someone else put him
in office (in deed the largest developer here donates to his campaign and my
elected official are bending over for him constantly--and the issues are
somehow ever blocked from getting onto the ballot to be reversed)--he has
done nothing for me... hope he has helped someone somewhere... what has your
congressman done for you?


That's just it. At the federal level, very little of what happens
directly benefits me (Unless we're talking about tax cuts). I
understand that I'm just one voice, and that my congressperson has no
obligation to consider my needs before those of thousands of other
people. To that end, I vote for people who share my "core values" and
political ideology. In that way, I can be reasonably sure they won't
do anything to seriously **** me off.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:16:32 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.


Dave, you're a friggin' loon.

I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.


Zeti-Reticuli?

Yea, you know, gray aliens..........




You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.


Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get
it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it:

Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it.


This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.


Wrong. The majority of -voters- choose.

When you lose a debate, you nitpick semantics. The majority of voters
pick the winner. Those who are too indifferent or apathetic to vote
deserve what they get handed. Voting is a civic duty. People like to
scream about "rights" but they're curiously silent when it comes to
responsibilities. What ever happened to JFK's famous: "Ask not what
your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?


And the person they choose is
not the "winner", as if being a public official was some sort of
prize.

It is a prize of sorts. It affirms the will of the majority of the
voters that their candidate will best represent what the majority
feels is important.


It's not. It's a job. And their job is to work in the best
interests of -ALL- their constituents, not just those that voted them
into office.

Ah, that naive idealism shows through again. You like to think of how
things SHOULD be. I, however, live in the real world. Those winning
candidates know all too well, who the people responsible for their
being there are, and will support their ideals and needs first and
foremost. That's the way it's always been.


And just for your information, your right to vote is granted by the
state, not guaranteed by the Constitution.

Then you'd have no problem if states started revoking certain people's
right to vote? After all, you're a staunch supporter of the letter of
the Constitution and consider it the be all and end all of everything
this country is.


There have been many
efforts to add a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every
citizen the right to vote, but each attempt has been blocked by the
Republicans.

I don't suppose you'd care to post the facts supporting that
conjecture?


That's just another tidbit you never hear about from the
"left-wing liberally biased news media".

Maybe because it isn't true......

You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,

Try to refuse to pay your taxes,


Now -there's- a great idea -- demand that the goverment protect your
country and your freedoms then squirm away when the bill comes.

Hey, I'm just "free thinking".


cry fire in a crowded theater,


Are you so uneducated that you don't even know where that phrase
originated?

Does it matter where it came from? It's a metaphor for outlining the
limits on your personal rights.


attempt to approach an elected official without permission,


Attempt to enter my house without permission and see what happens.


posses
contraband,


Contraband, by definition, is illegal.

According to whom? And that's the whole point.


or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious.


You can blame Bush's Patriot Act for that one.

It's about time, and far to late if you ask me.



Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government.


Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances
where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others.

Exactly! And what constitutes those "circumstances" is largely
determined by the majority of society.

How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave?

It's not a matter of rights per se, it's a matter of preserving a
sacred tradition. I suppose that could be viewed as a right.

Some of
your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a
license).


The lack of a driver's license doesn't prevent you from travelling
freely, just not with a motor vehicle.

Well duh!

Regardless, you can drive a
motor vehicle without a license if you are on private property.

Did Twisty give you that one? And what good would driving a car around
a 1/2 acre lot do for you?

You really are grasping at straws.


Kids
do it all the time at the go-kart tracks. Farmers do it all the time
in their fields. Need more examples of your ignorance?

My ignorance? Your (now expected) penchant for trying to find small
exceptions to try (vainly) to disprove the rule is becoming even more
pitiful.



etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.


If your guy loses on election day, you don't lose the rights and
freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

You might if enough people decide that an amendment is warranted. And
we're back to majority rule.


The USA is NOT a democracy

No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary
rule.

-- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned.

You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you)
knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing
wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins.


When you find a majority that is willing to give up the Constitution
then you let me know.

Regardless, the majority makes the decisions. The rights of the
minority are to be considered, but they don't have the right to
"override" the will of the majority.

If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't
understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist.


So were the founding fathers.

No, they lived in a simpler time, and couldn't fathom such things as
terrorism, nuclear weapons, and rabid liberal atheists looking to
expunge God from all public works.


Reality is a concept
that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment
clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are
the words separation of church and state in there.


You tried that spin once before and it didn't work. Why would you
think it's going to work if you use it a second time?

Find me any place in the constitution which calls for separation of
church and state in matters of government.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 27 May 2005 02:32:42 GMT, james wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:16:32 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Zeti-Reticuli?
******

I think he meant Zeta Reticuli. A binary star system in the
Constelation Reticulum. Composed of two stars Zeta1 and Zeta2. Both
are 5th magnitude stars and are visable from the most extreme southern
parts of the Northern Hemisphere.



That's the place. Rumored to be the origin of the so-called "gray"
Aliens.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:51:52 GMT, james wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:


I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.
*******

I am not a conspiracy nut. All you have to do is follow the money
trail and it becomes as obvious as the nose on your face that Congress
has been influienced by "money" Senators and Congressmen don't need
warchests of millions of dollars but for one thing, to get relected.
Who contributes to these warchests? Mostly Corporate America and
Foreign Global Companies.

Look at the legislation passed. Who does it favor? Why does Bush and
key republicans want to weaken EPA laws? To help companies that emmit
pollutants. Why? Because the costs to add additional equiptment to
meet the standards impact profits. Lower profits means that either
companies relocate outside the US or pass on the increased costs to
consumers. Yes companies use blackmail to get legislation in their
favor. They don't always get what they want and at times they get none
of what they want. But if y ou think that Corporate America does not
have any influence on Congress then I suggest that you come out of
Wonderland and quit chasing rabbits.

Of course there is influence. But that's hardly absolute control.
Buying political influence is a byproduct of a capitalist society. But
when did this become news?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 27 May 2005 02:04:54 GMT, james wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.
******

Hello it is not tough cookies. The president does not have carte
blanche to just crush those that did not vote for him into the dirt.

No, but if the congress, and the judiciary are in sync with him.......


G W Bush is not the president of republicans. He is the president of
all political parties.

Even if they hate his guts. Bitter sweet if I may say so......


Any president has to realize that he must weigh
the needs of all the people of this country and not beholden to his
party.

Any political party owes their constituents first, and others
secondarily. If the majority of voters suddenly decide that they want
liberals redefining the constitution, declaring that gay marriage is
ok, but religious expression in public is not, dispensing of aspirin
in public schools requires parental consent (Mostly to absolve
liability), but dispensing a condom or providing abortion services is
fine without parental consent, and all sort of other nonsensical
ideological trends is what they want, then they can vote for those who
support it. Right now the majority of people, who care enough about
such issues, has decreed that that is not the way they want the
country to head.


That is where the partizen politics have degraded in this
country over the past 40 yrs.

Well both sides are to blame for that. Neither side wants to risk
political defeat in order to achieve compromise. There is also a great
amount of ideological passion on both sides. Both sides believe
strongly in "their" ideals, and believe equally that the other side is
horribly wrong for the future of the country.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:42:00 GMT, james wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.
*****

First I never stated that our system was the only way to go. While it
has its problems, the good of our system overrides the bad. What I
have stated is that if the citizens do not stand in vigilance of their
elected officials this government will degrade into Facism or a
dictatorship.

That cannot happen as long as the Constitution remains in effect. We
the people elect our leaders and we can elect new ones if we don't
like the old ones.




Second since I vote, I have the right to complain whether you like it
or not.

Yes you do. But you have to come to terms with the fact that a larger
number of people disagree with you.


Third if I don't like what the elected officials are doing I DO VOTE
against them.

And what happened?


Fourth we have a Constitution to protect the Rights of the Minority
and not the Rights of the Majority. The Majority never needs
protection.

No, because the majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of
the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the
needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority.

No matter what decision you make politically, someone will not like
it. A good politician is one who learns to **** off the least amount
of people.


Fifth I don't ask that everything that I want to be enacted. I do
waccept the rule of the majority. I do expect the majority to hear the
voice of the minority and compromise.

That's fair as long as the majority is not expected to abandon its
core ideological values.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
(Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances
where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others. )

Exactly! And what constitutes those

"circumstances" is largely determined by the

majority of society.

(How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights?)

It's not a matter of rights per se, it's a matter of
preserving a sacred tradition.


Nowhere are you guaranteed a right of preserving what you define as
"sacred".

I suppose that could be viewed as a right.

Which is why you continue to be wrong.

(Second since I vote, I have the right to complain whether you like it
or not.)

Yes you do. But you have to come to terms

with the fact that a larger number of people

disagree with you.



Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people
like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own
are somehow of the minority. It's people like you that are unable to
come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who
disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate.




The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the

rights of the minority are considered but it

makes no logical sense that the needs of that

minority outweighs the needs of the majority.


It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or
infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived
majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been
illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with
this administration. Recently, a meeting with Greenspan regarding the
Bush administration's way-off predictions concerning the economy went
something like this: Greenspan: "We certainly were wrong on those
figures. We were all wrong."
Hillary Clinton: "Just for the record, we weren't -all- wrong with our
predicted calculations. "
Of course, slavery was accepted by the majority, also. One shouldn't
have to provide countless examples of how "majority" does not equate
morality in any manner, yet you continue to confuse the two.



That's fair as long as the majority is not

expected to abandon its core ideological

values.



It goes both ways. You illustrate perfectly the current political
majority is not only rabid, but has zero tolerance toward any view other
than their own. Like the Bush admin prostitutes religion, you do the
same thing with morals, invoking -your- values as the litmus test and
justification to sit in judgement of others.




Dave

"Sandbagger"

Dave:

No, gov't flows from the citizens to the gov't--wouldn't create any more
gov't... we need citizens in control of a home militia...

Warmest regards,
John

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to
oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a
need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something
started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which
swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:52:46 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Fourth we have a Constitution to protect the Rights of the Minority
and not the Rights of the Majority. The Majority never needs
protection.

No, because the majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of
the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the
needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority.


This is not a minority/majority issue, Dave. Civil rights apply to
each and every individual. If the majority makes a decision that
affects those civil rights then it affects everyone -including- the
majority. And last time I checked, the word 'all' encompasses the
ultimate majority. But the people do have a choice. If they want to
prohibit gay marriage based on their religious beliefs then they must
be willing to give up their freedom of religion.

So are -you- prepared to sacrifice -your- freedom to practice -your-
religion in order to preserve this "sacred tradition"?





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:28:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.


Wrong. The majority of -voters- choose.

When you lose a debate, you nitpick semantics. The majority of voters
pick the winner. Those who are too indifferent or apathetic to vote
deserve what they get handed. Voting is a civic duty. People like to
scream about "rights" but they're curiously silent when it comes to
responsibilities. What ever happened to JFK's famous: "Ask not what
your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?


Contrary to your "core beliefs", -all- citizens have Constitutional
rights whether they vote or not. And as for civic duty, I enlisted in
the USMC, sewed a target (the US flag) on my shoulder and took a
stroll through the middle of a civil war in Lebanon -- so what did
-you- do for your country, Dave?


And the person they choose is
not the "winner", as if being a public official was some sort of
prize.

It is a prize of sorts. It affirms the will of the majority of the
voters that their candidate will best represent what the majority
feels is important.


The job of any elected official is to represent -all- his constituents
-regardless- of whether they voted for him, someone else, or nobody at
all.


It's not. It's a job. And their job is to work in the best
interests of -ALL- their constituents, not just those that voted them
into office.

Ah, that naive idealism shows through again. You like to think of how
things SHOULD be. I, however, live in the real world. Those winning
candidates know all too well, who the people responsible for their
being there are, and will support their ideals and needs first and
foremost. That's the way it's always been.


You are absolutely correct. They know all too well that they were
voted into office by Americans -- citizens of a country where the law
of the land is the Constitution of the United States. And -THAT- is
their number one priority because the Constitution is the number one
priority of each and every citizen. At least it's the first priority
of any citizen that exercises any rights that are protected by it. If
it were intended to be otherwise we wouldn't have elections by secret
ballot.


And just for your information, your right to vote is granted by the
state, not guaranteed by the Constitution.

Then you'd have no problem if states started revoking certain people's
right to vote? After all, you're a staunch supporter of the letter of
the Constitution and consider it the be all and end all of everything
this country is.


Of course I would have a problem with it, just like I have a problem
with the current system of electing a president with an electoral
college. Do you have any problem with a Constitutional amendment that
guarantees every citizen the right to vote?


There have been many
efforts to add a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every
citizen the right to vote, but each attempt has been blocked by the
Republicans.

I don't suppose you'd care to post the facts supporting that
conjecture?


Not really -- facts don't carry much weight where your opinions are
concerned. If you really want the facts you can find them yourself,
just like you have been able to do with every other topic. And just
like every other topic you will probably refuse to dig for the facts
for yourself. But if you really want to suprise me, you can start by
learning something about HJR 28.


That's just another tidbit you never hear about from the
"left-wing liberally biased news media".

Maybe because it isn't true......


How do you think Bush wormed his way into the White House? Because the
Supreme Court affirmed that the right to vote is not guaranteed by the
Constitution (Bush vs. Gore). Or do you think that the Supreme Court
Justices are just a bunch of "activist judges", or that their decision
was written by some "skilled left wing propagandist"?


You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,

Try to refuse to pay your taxes,


Now -there's- a great idea -- demand that the goverment protect your
country and your freedoms then squirm away when the bill comes.

Hey, I'm just "free thinking".


cry fire in a crowded theater,


Are you so uneducated that you don't even know where that phrase
originated?

Does it matter where it came from? It's a metaphor for outlining the
limits on your personal rights.


It's an analogy, not a metaphor. And it -does- matter where the phrase
originated because it's part of the law. You can't falsely cry fire in
a crowded theater because it presents a "clear and present danger"
(Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47).


attempt to approach an elected official without permission,


Attempt to enter my house without permission and see what happens.


posses
contraband,


Contraband, by definition, is illegal.

According to whom? And that's the whole point.


Gawd you are stupid.


or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious.


You can blame Bush's Patriot Act for that one.

It's about time, and far to late if you ask me.


I didn't ask you.


Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government.


Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances
where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others.

Exactly! And what constitutes those "circumstances" is largely
determined by the majority of society.


Wrong. It's determined by the rights that are being infringed upon.


How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave?

It's not a matter of rights per se, it's a matter of preserving a
sacred tradition. I suppose that could be viewed as a right.


Sorry, that doesn't wash -- you are "preserving a sacred tradition" at
the expense of the rights of others. That's not a right, that's just
another one of your bogus excuses.


Some of
your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a
license).


The lack of a driver's license doesn't prevent you from travelling
freely, just not with a motor vehicle.

Well duh!

Regardless, you can drive a
motor vehicle without a license if you are on private property.

Did Twisty give you that one? And what good would driving a car around
a 1/2 acre lot do for you?


It sure beats carrying 30 bags of concrete by hand.


You really are grasping at straws.


Bales of it -- it's a lot easier to move a few dozen bales of straw
around the farm on a truck instead of on your back.


Kids
do it all the time at the go-kart tracks. Farmers do it all the time
in their fields. Need more examples of your ignorance?

My ignorance? Your (now expected) penchant for trying to find small
exceptions to try (vainly) to disprove the rule is becoming even more
pitiful.


Your (often demonstrated) penchant for trying to find small exceptions
to try (vainly) to defend your ignorance is quite entertaining.


etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.


If your guy loses on election day, you don't lose the rights and
freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

You might if enough people decide that an amendment is warranted. And
we're back to majority rule.


But it's far from a simple majority. An amendment proposal must pass
Congress by a 2/3 majority, and -then- it must pass the States by a
3/4 majority. But even before you call that 'majority rule', know
this: Since 1787 there have been well over 2000 proposed amendments to
the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights has survived unscathed for
almost as long -- if you really think that the 1st Amendment is going
to be repealed just because a few homophobic "Christians" don't like
the idea of gays getting married then.... well, even -you- can't be
-that- stupid. Or am I wrong?


The USA is NOT a democracy

No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary
rule.

-- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned.

You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you)
knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing
wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins.


When you find a majority that is willing to give up the Constitution
then you let me know.

Regardless, the majority makes the decisions. The rights of the
minority are to be considered, but they don't have the right to
"override" the will of the majority.


Like I said: When you find a majority that is willing to give up the
Constitution then you let me know.


If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't
understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist.


So were the founding fathers.

No, they lived in a simpler time, and couldn't fathom such things as
terrorism, nuclear weapons, and rabid liberal atheists looking to
expunge God from all public works.


The only thing you got right was that they didn't have any idea about
nuclear weapons. The rest is a further demonstration that you slept
through your History classes.


Reality is a concept
that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment
clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are
the words separation of church and state in there.


You tried that spin once before and it didn't work. Why would you
think it's going to work if you use it a second time?

Find me any place in the constitution which calls for separation of
church and state in matters of government.


The First Amendment. Haven't you been paying attention?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Did you miss this post, too, Dave? Well, here it is again:


On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:05:25 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:14:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:57:10 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
So, here we have a double edged sword. We live in a world economy,
with companies from all over the world competing for market share. So,
what's a U.S. based corporation to do? Should it:

A. Keep its U.S. work force in order to altruistically keep the
American work force employed?

B. Outsource to a foreign country where labor and overhead is much
cheaper?


The answer is A because loyalty must be earned, and American's have a
very good long-term memory.

Even if the American company is forced out of business by cheaper
foreign competitors?


Obviously you didn't read the entire post before starting your reply.


Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap
foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now
at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in
direct competition from foreign companies.


American workers could be easily protected with import tariffs; but
Bush's butt has been kissed (and licked, sucked, wiped and powdered)
by corporations seeking cheap labor, so he is pushing for open-border
trade agreements with third-world countries.

Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not
help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the
price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American
consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to
compensate, and you now have inflation.


Wrong. Import tariffs drive up the cost of -imported- products, which
in turn encourages -domestic- production and manufacturing. The prices
will go up, as will the wages; but the overall effect is that the
domestic economy is stimulated, which more than compensates for any
short-term dips. And for the record, it also reduces the amount paid
for welfare since more people are working.


Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE
consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign
markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will
wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to
match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would
likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on
theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then.


Wrong on both counts. American innovation and technology is, and has
always been, one of the primary exports of this country. Stimulate the
industrial base and you stimulate people and businesses to be more
innovative (instead of using the word as an advertising gimmick).


Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product
just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is
squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the
costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best
bargains in everything we buy.


Because the taxes are on the Americans, not on the import corporations
(e.g, Walmart, aka 'China Inc.') where they should be.

See above.



And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more
for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product?


Depends on where that 'foreign' product was made.

Does it matter? If it's cheaper, they will buy it.


I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't
you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is
often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your
brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations?


What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive
edge?


Any US corp that chooses to cut American jobs instead of lobbying for
import tariffs against foreign competitors is, in the most tactful of
terms, economically nearsighted.

So, then, you would rather an American company keep it's American
workforce in a patriotic corporate suicide attempt, as it folds under
unmatchable competition from abroad? What if all US companies fold or
move their corporate headquarters offshore? Then what?


What if all US companies lobbied for import tariffs?


What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China?
Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about
ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates.

Yes, inflation is a very real fear.


No, it's not. It's a hope. Inflation, in a free market economy, is an
'equalizer' -- it's an effect of a surplus of cash in circulation,
which usually ends up in the hands of those who need it the most.
Historically, inflation hurts the rich and benefits the poor, which is
something you never hear from the "left-wing, liberally biased media".

Well that's true to an extent. Those who invest their money in fixed
rate securities (retired people) will earn more interest, while those
seeking to borrow, will pay more. But the rich are who generally
create the jobs that the rest of us work at.


Wrong. The failure of Reaganomics proved that people create their own
jobs when the rich get too greedy. They do so out of necessity.


If inflation cuts into
their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make
other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins.


It really doesn't matter since the US is no longer a free-market
economy -- the Federal Reserve has tight (and probably illegal)
control over the money supply and keeps the inflation rate down
artificially.


But when the standard of living
equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture
overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic
manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also
be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as
much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price.
That's free market 101.


You obviously failed Economics 101, and probably never took Macro- or
Micro-Economics.

Sigh. You can't get through a post without an insult can you Mr
Bartender?


Nope. Can you get through a post without a demonstration of your
ignorance and lack of education?


Cheap labor will always be available in any country that's poor in
natural resources. There are many, and that's not going to change
anytime soon. The fact that Iraq's new "government" refused to allow
labor unions (a law imposed by Saddam) should be a good indication as
to where the next market for cheap labor will be found.

But Iraq is not poor in natural resources.


But Iraq's natural resources are only partially owned and controlled
by Iraq. They were fully owned by Iraq under Saddam, but after his
overthrow many international conglomerates (mostly US and UK oil
companies, most of which include the Bush family as stockholders)
invoked claims that existed prior to Saddam. The people of Iraq are
going to see hardly any of the money that comes from their own
resources -- instead it's going right into the pockets of oil company
fat-cats.


You can't get something for nothing.

You don't know just how much truth there is in that statement.


Damn straight. Freedom isn't free. Other people paid for your
freedoms, Dave. Maybe you should take the time to try and understand
why.

I know that freedom is not unlimited.


Freedom isn't free. Period. Quit being a dumbass and learn why.


In time the US will suffer. Prepare for
China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US'
economy .

Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So
what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it?


Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand
that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents
of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations.

Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions.


Well gee, Dave, what a novel idea.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:33:14 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:


Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people
like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own
are somehow of the minority.

The last election pretty much confirms this.


It's people like you that are unable to
come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who
disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate.

It is you who are in the minority, but somehow think you are in the
majority despite evidence, such as the last couple of elections, which
show exactly the opposite. Democrats are still losing seats in
congress, despite the unpopular war in Iraq. The desperation of these
same democrats who just can't understand why they are losing, has
become so obvious, that they don't even try to hide their crass,
shrill, and unprofessional attacks against Republicans. That only
makes the people rebel against them even more.

At least one democrat understands this. It's interesting to watch
Hillary Clinton try to reinvent herself as a "moderate", and to
distance herself from some of her more vocal compadres. I guess she
figures that we'll all forget her former leftist politics, and that
farce that was supposed to be universal heathcare.


The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the
rights of the minority are considered but it
makes no logical sense that the needs of that
minority outweighs the needs of the majority.

It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or
infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived
majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been
illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with
this administration.

What is considered right and wrong is usually relative and depends
upon the perspective of the majority. And, like it or not, from the
time we are little kids in school, we learned that life is not always
fair, and that those in the majority set the fads, trends, and rules
whether the rest of us agree or not.

Take slavery for example. At one time the majority of society thought
that this practice was "right". Today, the majority of society
believes that it is wrong. The only thing that has changed is value
perspective. If the left is somehow successful in bending the moral
compass, and becomes the majority ideology, then it can set the rules.
Until then, continue to sit on the side of the road with nonsensical
protest signs and let the rest of us earn our keep. And stop whining
about how unfair life is.

As another example, I personally think the TV show, "American Idol"
(and most "reality" shows for that matter) is a complete waste of time
and a total example of vapid vicarious superficiality, and voyeurism.
However, a great majority of Americans would disagree with me. So I'm
sure that my wish that shows like that would disappear is not likely
going to happen as long as they continue to pull the ratings that they
do.


That's fair as long as the majority is not
expected to abandon its core ideological
values.

It goes both ways. You illustrate perfectly the current political
majority is not only rabid, but has zero tolerance toward any view other
than their own.

It's not the "right" who has zero tolerance, it is the hypocritical
left, who talk the ideals of tolerance, yet they are extremely
selective of their "tolerance" and tend to be intolerant to anyone who
challenges their views. The left tolerates diverse cultural and sexual
perversions, yet has a problem with religious groups. The left speaks
of the 1st amendment unless, of course, the person (or group) using
it, speaks out against their ideological viewpoint. Vilifying or
demonizing ideological opposition by using words which end in "-ist"
is little more than an weak attempt at silencing the other side's
opinions when they can't argue the points based on their merits alone.
The whole "politically correct" speech movement is another example.
And what could be more hypocritical than opposing the death penalty
for convicted criminals, while allowing (and in some ways encouraging)
the killing of innocent unborn children (and without parental
notification in the case of minor girls)?

The left epitomizes, and is the pure embodiment of hypocrisy


Like the Bush admin prostitutes religion, you do the
same thing with morals, invoking -your- values as the litmus test and
justification to sit in judgement of others.

And aren't you doing the same, only using a different litmus test?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:44:07 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Did you miss this post, too, Dave?

Frank, I'll choose which posts I wish to respond to and which ones I
won't . Trying to bury me under a pile of nonsense is not going to
work Frank.



The answer is A because loyalty must be earned, and American's have a
very good long-term memory.

Even if the American company is forced out of business by cheaper
foreign competitors?

Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap
foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now
at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in
direct competition from foreign companies.


American workers could be easily protected with import tariffs; but
Bush's butt has been kissed (and licked, sucked, wiped and powdered)
by corporations seeking cheap labor, so he is pushing for open-border
trade agreements with third-world countries.

Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not
help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the
price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American
consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to
compensate, and you now have inflation.


Wrong.

No, right. If you are going to claim that I am "wrong", protocol
dictates that you provide corroborating evidence to back it up. Simply
claiming that I'm wrong based on little more than your own ignorance
of economics is not going to be seriously considered.



Import tariffs drive up the cost of -imported- products, which
in turn encourages -domestic- production and manufacturing. The prices
will go up, as will the wages;

Which translates to....... INFLATION!

If you want to pay $500 again for a VCR or DVD player, and $400 again
for a decent CB (Like it was in the 70's not even accounting for
inflation) then maybe this might appeal to you. But the problem is
that the American public has become adjusted to receiving high
American wages, while paying for cheaper imported goods. If the price
of goods increases substantially, then the wages of the workers will
have to jump to cover it. When that happens the cost of corporate
direct labor and overhead goes up, and they have to raise the price of
manufactured goods to cover it. And the cycle of inflation repeats.
Part of the reason why the rate of inflation has been so low for the
last several years is due to the fact that the cost of goods had
actually dropped as corporations tighten their belts and outsource
more of their labor. Demand for higher wages has fallen, and inflation
remains in check.


but the overall effect is that the
domestic economy is stimulated, which more than compensates for any
short-term dips. And for the record, it also reduces the amount paid
for welfare since more people are working.

I'm not sure where to start since you have such a myopic view of
global economics. This isn't the USA solely owning it's own
corporations any more. Practically all large corporations are
multi-national to some degree. They compete in many markets of which
the US is but one consumer. Tariffs will only help the domestic
market. It will do little to help the corporation in the international
market share.


Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE
consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign
markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will
wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to
match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would
likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on
theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then.


Wrong on both counts. American innovation and technology is, and has
always been, one of the primary exports of this country.

You blindly assume that Americans are the only ones who can master
this area. Have you spent any time in the Pacific Rim lately? We're
about to be eclipsed by Japan (If not already), and many other
countries (such as India) are also closing in on us in technology
related fields.

Stimulate the
industrial base and you stimulate people and businesses to be more
innovative (instead of using the word as an advertising gimmick).

You should write motivational slogans. Empty, hollow, and meaningless
words designed to make us feel good, but carry absolutely no weight.

But since you cannot provide substance for your claims, allow me to
provide it for mine:

http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/fairtradec/new/b031107.pdf

This report outlines, among other things, what happens when a global
organization, such as the WHO, reacts negatively to what they perceive
as "protectionist" tactics such as tariffs. So tell me again how I am
"wrong" about potential retaliation for any tariffs we may place on
foreign made goods.


Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product
just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is
squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the
costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best
bargains in everything we buy.


Because the taxes are on the Americans, not on the import corporations
(e.g, Walmart, aka 'China Inc.') where they should be.

See above.



And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more
for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product?


Depends on where that 'foreign' product was made.

Does it matter? If it's cheaper, they will buy it.


I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't
you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is
often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your
brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations?

So you posit that a Ford is on equal standing, quality wise, with a
Mercedes? People will sometimes pay more for something if they
perceive a greater value for it. So I ask again, is the relative value
of a Ford the same as that of a Mercedes? Would the Ford be able to
compete on a price basis with a Mercedes? If not for the cheaper price
of the domestic car, would they not lose all market share to those
foreign companies if they were forced to compete on a purely quality
basis?

Besides the obvious pedigree and prestige that names like Mercedes
bring to the table, there is also the issue of status. That's why
idiots will pay thousands more for a Lexus, which is little more than
a Toyota with a few superficial frills and a different emblem badge.

Why do you think sales of imported cars have become such a threat
here? GM, Ford, and Mopar are all feeling the pinch. It used to be
that the foreign cars were significantly more expensive (Mostly due to
import tariffs), and the domestic product sold well because it was
cheaper. Now, since the prices are fairly close, the perception of
better quality that comes with the Japanese cars, has convinced people
to abandon the "Buy American" motif, in favor of their own bottom
line.

This example also speaks to your assumption of "superior American
technology" and ingenuity. Don't look now, but we've been beaten at
our own game.


What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive
edge?


Any US corp that chooses to cut American jobs instead of lobbying for
import tariffs against foreign competitors is, in the most tactful of
terms, economically nearsighted.

So, then, you would rather an American company keep it's American
workforce in a patriotic corporate suicide attempt, as it folds under
unmatchable competition from abroad? What if all US companies fold or
move their corporate headquarters offshore? Then what?


What if all US companies lobbied for import tariffs?

What if there really were a man in the moon?



What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China?
Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about
ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates.

Yes, inflation is a very real fear.


No, it's not. It's a hope. Inflation, in a free market economy, is an
'equalizer' -- it's an effect of a surplus of cash in circulation,
which usually ends up in the hands of those who need it the most.
Historically, inflation hurts the rich and benefits the poor, which is
something you never hear from the "left-wing, liberally biased media".

Well that's true to an extent. Those who invest their money in fixed
rate securities (retired people) will earn more interest, while those
seeking to borrow, will pay more. But the rich are who generally
create the jobs that the rest of us work at.


Wrong. The failure of Reaganomics proved that people create their own
jobs when the rich get too greedy. They do so out of necessity.

Reagonomics was far from a failure. It is what stimulated the last 2
decades of economic growth, especially in the tech sector which was
heavily made up of small, face-paced startup companies. You know, like
Microsoft.




If inflation cuts into
their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make
other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins.


It really doesn't matter since the US is no longer a free-market
economy -- the Federal Reserve has tight (and probably illegal)
control over the money supply and keeps the inflation rate down
artificially.

The Fed only controls the rate at which money is borrowed.

Any time the government mucks with the market, it upsets the balance
of the free market. Why do you think healthcare costs are so high?

But when the standard of living
equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture
overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic
manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also
be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as
much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price.
That's free market 101.


You obviously failed Economics 101, and probably never took Macro- or
Micro-Economics.

Sigh. You can't get through a post without an insult can you Mr
Bartender?


Nope. Can you get through a post without a demonstration of your
ignorance and lack of education?

I'm still waiting for something more significant than just your
opposing opinion to substantiate that.



Cheap labor will always be available in any country that's poor in
natural resources. There are many, and that's not going to change
anytime soon. The fact that Iraq's new "government" refused to allow
labor unions (a law imposed by Saddam) should be a good indication as
to where the next market for cheap labor will be found.

But Iraq is not poor in natural resources.


But Iraq's natural resources are only partially owned and controlled
by Iraq. They were fully owned by Iraq under Saddam, but after his
overthrow many international conglomerates (mostly US and UK oil
companies, most of which include the Bush family as stockholders)
invoked claims that existed prior to Saddam. The people of Iraq are
going to see hardly any of the money that comes from their own
resources -- instead it's going right into the pockets of oil company
fat-cats.

I suppose I'm grasping at straws to ask that you back that up with
something official.



In time the US will suffer. Prepare for
China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US'
economy .

Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So
what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it?


Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand
that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents
of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations.

Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions.


Well gee, Dave, what a novel idea.

Now try to get it passed eh?

Getting the picture yet?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:43:39 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Dave:

No, gov't flows from the citizens to the gov't--wouldn't create any more
gov't... we need citizens in control of a home militia...


Ok, let's run with that. So how do you plan to create a group which
would have enough power to overthrow the "official" government, which
also controls the military?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:33:14 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people
like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own
are somehow of the minority.

The last election pretty much confirms this.



Exactly, as a certain faction (like yourself) who voted for Bush
continue to mistakenly believe Bush had a majority of the people in the
US vote for him (he didn't) and that he achieved a mandate (again, he
did not, unless you can explain Gannon).
It's people like you that are unable to
come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who
disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate.

It is you who are in the minority, but somehow

think you are in the majority despite evidence,

Yes, evidence showing YOU are in the minority not the majority as
relates here among these pages. A perfect example is your shining belief
that speeders are criminals simply because they break a certain law,
which inevitably leads to your inability to distinguish between civil
and criminal infractions, even though you continue to confuse the two
and hold those who infract civil law the same as you do those who
infract criminal laws...as a criminal. Once again, the majority
disagrees with your ignorance.

such as the last couple of elections, which

show exactly the opposite. Democrats are still

losing seats in congress, despite the

unpopular war in Iraq. The desperation of

these same democrats who just can't

understand why they are losing, has become

so obvious, that they don't even try to hide

their crass, shrill, and unprofessional attacks

against Republicans.



Goes bothways,,,,like Delay and the comments he made regarding hatred
and his threats against judges that you couldn't even locate on your
own. In fact, you weren't even aware your own party acknowledged global
warming, so you have pretty much ascertained to the group that even
though you fancy yourself as educated on such subjects, you fall way
short.

That only makes the people rebel against

them even more.

At least one democrat understands this. It's

interesting to watch Hillary Clinton try to

reinvent herself as a "moderate",


As many, many republicans have distanced themselves from Bush...

and to distance herself from some of her more

vocal compadres. I guess she figures that we'll
all forget her former leftist politics, and that

farce that was supposed to be universal

heathcare.



That you consider healthcare for our own people as leftist politics
while we continue to offer free health care to all the Iraqis who simply
ask for it illustrates your level of comprehension.


The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the

rights of the minority are considered but it

makes no logical sense that the needs of that

minority outweighs the needs of the majority.




It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or
infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived
majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been
illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with
this administration.

What is considered right and wrong is usually

relative and depends upon the perspective of

the majority.




Wrong. Rights are not inherent to any majority group, despite what they
and you feel. you are not special,....rights extend to all in this
country, not merely your imagined moral majority.

And, like it or not, from the time we are little

kids in school, we learned that life is not

always fair, and that those in the majority set

the fads, trends, and rules whether the rest of

us agree or not.

Take slavery for example.


I already did. Get your own examples to illustrate how majority rule is
not always right.

As another example, I personally think the TV

show, "American Idol" (and most "reality"

shows for that matter) is a complete waste of

time and a total example of vapid vicarious

superficiality, and voyeurism.




Exactly, yet, such audio voyeurism is something you find "juicy". In
fact, it was only a few years ago you claimed practicing audio voyeurism
turned you on, listening to underaged girls talk about sex on their
cordless phones. In this example, you not only had to be made aware that
intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal and that
you were breaking the law, but you had to be clued in that the majority
of people would not find sex talk by underaged minor girls "juicy" as
you did.
This is where your ****ed up hypocrisy regarding morals and all that
bull**** you are forced to regurgitate makes you shine.



=A0=A0Like the Bush admin prostitutes religion, you do the same thing
with morals, invoking -your- values as the litmus test and justification
to sit in judgement of others.

And aren't you doing the same, only using a

different litmus test?

I never asked another adult to justify their actions. That's reserved
for you and those who feel they are entitled to something simply by
virtue of ignorance crossed with arrogance.


David T. Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians
(public servants) they control the military for us--the force would have
to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own
plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to
follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his powers
once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever
arises...

Warmest regards,
John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dave:

No, gov't flows from the citizens to the gov't--wouldn't create any
more gov't... we need citizens in control of a home militia...

Warmest regards,
John

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to
oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a
need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute
its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something
started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which
swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:11:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:33:14 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people
like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own
are somehow of the minority.

The last election pretty much confirms this.



Exactly, as a certain faction (like yourself) who voted for Bush
continue to mistakenly believe Bush had a majority of the people in the
US vote for him (he didn't)

Then how do you explain how he won?


and that he achieved a mandate (again, he
did not, unless you can explain Gannon).
It's people like you that are unable to
come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who
disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate.

It is you who are in the minority, but somehow

think you are in the majority despite evidence,

Yes, evidence showing YOU are in the minority not the majority as
relates here among these pages. A perfect example is your shining belief
that speeders are criminals simply because they break a certain law,

You just keep repeating that lie in the hopes that it'll suddenly
become true. I NEVER ever made the statement that speeders are
criminals.

such as the last couple of elections, which
show exactly the opposite. Democrats are still
losing seats in congress, despite the
unpopular war in Iraq. The desperation of
these same democrats who just can't
understand why they are losing, has become
so obvious, that they don't even try to hide
their crass, shrill, and unprofessional attacks
against Republicans.



Goes bothways,,,,like Delay and the comments he made regarding hatred
and his threats against judges that you couldn't even locate on your
own.

Which pales in comparison to the vitriol spouted by the likes of Al
Gore, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and others.



In fact, you weren't even aware your own party acknowledged global
warming,

You're lying again.


so you have pretty much ascertained to the group that even
though you fancy yourself as educated on such subjects, you fall way
short.

Well, sure, when held against your wild imagination, I do fall short.
But when held against the truth, I do just fine.



That only makes the people rebel against
them even more.

At least one democrat understands this. It's
interesting to watch Hillary Clinton try to
reinvent herself as a "moderate",


As many, many republicans have distanced themselves from Bush...

A few uncertain doubters does not constitute "many".


and to distance herself from some of her more
vocal compadres. I guess she figures that we'll
all forget her former leftist politics, and that
farce that was supposed to be universal
heathcare.


That you consider healthcare for our own people as leftist politics
while we continue to offer free health care to all the Iraqis who simply
ask for it illustrates your level of comprehension.

As is typical for you, you divert from one issue to another. I oppose
all forms of socialized medicine whether it be for us or Iraqi's.


The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the
rights of the minority are considered but it
makes no logical sense that the needs of that
minority outweighs the needs of the majority.




It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or
infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived
majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been
illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with
this administration.

What is considered right and wrong is usually
relative and depends upon the perspective of
the majority.


Wrong. Rights are not inherent to any majority group, despite what they
and you feel. you are not special,....rights extend to all in this
country, not merely your imagined moral majority.

That has nothing to do with the concept of what is "right or wrong"
and who sets the standard by which this is gauged.


And, like it or not, from the time we are little
kids in school, we learned that life is not
always fair, and that those in the majority set
the fads, trends, and rules whether the rest of
us agree or not.

Take slavery for example.


I already did. Get your own examples to illustrate how majority rule is
not always right.

Majority rule is always right in the context of the time it is
enacted.

During the time of slavery, the majority believed it was an acceptable
practice. Eventually the majority changed their belief and decided
that it was no longer an acceptable practice.

In no time in recent history has the minority successfully bent the
will of the majority on major issues. Change occurs when the majority
recognizes that the time is right for a different direction. It is not
a sudden thing, rather it is a gradual transition. Liberals have been
attempting to affect political and social change through the
indoctrination of young people and by the dissemination of liberally
biased news for some time. Fortunately, events such as the rise of
talk radio, the ability of people to seek alternative news sources
through the internet, and exposure of some of the purveyors of liberal
bias, has slowed down, if not reversed, this trend.



As another example, I personally think the TV
show, "American Idol" (and most "reality"
shows for that matter) is a complete waste of
time and a total example of vapid vicarious
superficiality, and voyeurism.


Exactly, yet, such audio voyeurism is something you find "juicy". In
fact, it was only a few years ago you claimed practicing audio voyeurism
turned you on,

That is yet another lie. I never made any such claim.

I also listened to people making drug deals. But that doesn't make me
a druggie.

listening to underaged girls talk about sex on their
cordless phones. In this example, you not only had to be made aware that
intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal

It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. Any scanner
user could do it. If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want people
listening in, they need to block out those frequencies or scramble the
transmissions. Which is exactly what they did for the cell phone band.

We've been all through this before. (As usual) You don't know what you
are talking about. Don't embarrass yourself by bringing it up again. I
am more than willing to post the links to the ECPA, showing the date
that it became effective and what it covers.


Dave
"Sandbagger"