|
|
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 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 |
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" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com