SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 3, 11:34*pm, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

....and how is this related to SWL?

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Oh no, is it already that time? Your gay marriage is tomorrow? And,
still you can't get the Constitution to respect your guy and you?
Bummer dude!

Regards,
JS

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Yeah, and what does your gay marriage have to do with SWL anyway?

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 4, 1:00*am, dave wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 3, 11:34 pm, *wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

...and how is this related to SWL?

In a special way. *I was listening to shortwave when I typed it.

....now that is one hell of an excuse !!!

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.


Preposterous. Read the words of the men who wrote it.


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

The Constitution says what it means and means what is says ...

Regards,
JS

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 4, 7:12*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

(OT) : OK - What Does The US Constitution Say -wrt- US ConstitutionIntentionally Vague . . .
 

On Sep 4, 8:12*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

OK - What Does The US Constitution Say :
We the People of the United States, {Power To The People}
in Order to form a more perfect Union, {National Unity}
Establish Justice, {Not Preference for the Few }
Insure Domestic Tranquility, {Not Class Warfare}
Provide for the Common Defence, {Not a Police State}
Promote the General Welfare, {Freedom To Be Free}
and Secure the Blessings of Liberty {From God For The People}
to Ourselves and our Posterity, {Today and into the Future}
do Ordain and Establish this Constitution {Created By The People}
for the United States of America.
{A Republic : Government Accountable To The People}

say what you will : it says what it says ~ RHF

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

John Smith wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

The Constitution says what it means and means what is says ...

Regards,
JS


You make it sound like some kind of religious proclamation.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 pm, John wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.


What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

(OT) : OK - What Does The US Constitution Say -wrt- US ConstitutionIntentionally Vague . . .
 

RHF wrote:

OK - What Does The US Constitution Say :
We the People of the United States, {Power To The People}
in Order to form a more perfect Union, {National Unity}
Establish Justice, {Not Preference for the Few }
Insure Domestic Tranquility, {Not Class Warfare}
Provide for the Common Defence, {Not a Police State}
Promote the General Welfare, {Freedom To Be Free}
and Secure the Blessings of Liberty {From God For The People}
to Ourselves and our Posterity, {Today and into the Future}
do Ordain and Establish this Constitution {Created By The People}
for the United States of America.
{A Republic : Government Accountable To The People}

say what you will : it says what it says ~ RHF
.
.

You are an idiot.

The Preamble carries no force of law.

(Does "defence" against disease count?)

(Can there be "domestic tranquility" without a middle class?)

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

dave wrote:
[...]
What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?



Since the Constitution gives no power whatever to the central
government to legislate on or control drugs, no federal drug "laws"
can possibly be constitutional, and every DEA arrest and conviction
is itself illegal. (Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution
for the federal government even _knowing_ what you possess, much
less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider
scope -- but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the
prevailing standards are congenial to you.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

dave wrote:
[...]

The point sailed right past you. The point being the Founders were
neither clairvoyant nor divinely inspired. They were major hypocrites
and therefore mere imperfect slobs like the rest of us.



Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. They created a truly
_limited_ government, a unique and highly beneficial accomplishment.
It is a tragedy beyond words that their system has been overthrown.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
dave wrote:
[...]
What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?



Since the Constitution gives no power whatever to the central government
to legislate on or control drugs, no federal drug "laws" can possibly be
constitutional, and every DEA arrest and conviction is itself illegal.
(Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution for the federal
government even _knowing_ what you possess, much less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider scope --
but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the prevailing
standards are congenial to you.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.

The point sailed right past you. The point being the Founders were
neither clairvoyant nor divinely inspired. They were major hypocrites
and therefore mere imperfect slobs like the rest of us.

(OT) : OK - What Does The US Constitution Say -wrt- USConstitution Intentionally Vague . . .
 

On Sep 4, 10:32*pm, RHF wrote:
On Sep 4, 8:12*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Sep 4, 7:12*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

OK - What Does The US Constitution Say :
We the People of the United States, {Power To The People}
in Order to form a more perfect Union, {National Unity}
Establish Justice, {Not Preference for the Few }
Insure Domestic Tranquility, {Not Class Warfare}
Provide for the Common Defence, {Not a Police State}
Promote the General Welfare, {Freedom To Be Free}
and Secure the Blessings of Liberty {From God For The People}
to Ourselves and our Posterity, {Today and into the Future}
do Ordain and Establish this Constitution {Created By The People}
for the United States of America.
{A Republic : Government Accountable To The People}

say what you will : it says what it says ~ RHF
*.
*.

First of all, you wrote in lots of words that are not there. That's
your interpretation, and has little to do with my point.

The Constitution does not guarantee that the majority's will rules.
If it did, it would not have set up a Republic with the two houses of
Congress structured differently, a single person with power of
approval and veto, and a judiciary system that could override
everything. That was my point. The founders recognized that "shoot-
from-the-hip" rule by majority would and could be unjust and dangerous
to minorities.

Bruce

(OT) : OK - What Does The US Constitution Say -wrt- USConstitution Intentionally Vague . . .
 

On Sep 5, 6:40*am, dave wrote:
- - RHF wrote:
- - OK - What Does The US Constitution Say :
- - We the People of the United States, {Power To The People}
- - in Order to form a more perfect Union, {National Unity}
- - Establish Justice, {Not Preference for the Few }
- - Insure Domestic Tranquility, {Not Class Warfare}
- - Provide for the Common Defence, {Not a Police State}
- - Promote the General Welfare, {Freedom To Be Free}
- - and Secure the Blessings of Liberty {From God For The People}
- - to Ourselves and our Posterity, {Today and into the Future}
- - do Ordain and Establish this Constitution {Created By The People}
- - for the United States of America.
- - {A Republic : Government Accountable To The People}
- -
- - say what you will : it says what it says ~ RHF
- - .
- - .

Dave -wrote- {proclaimed}

- You are an idiot.
{Dave proclaim it loud : YOU ARE AN IDIOT ! :-}

OK so in Dave's Bizzaro World Reciting the
"We the People" part of the US Constitution
makes someone an "Idiot"

But-Dave ! - Which Part of the US Constitution
Makes Anyone an Idiot !

Hey Dave then Yes I Am an Idiot for Loving My Country.

But-Dave ! - Are All Patriot Americans Idiots ?

- The Preamble carries no force of law.

But-Dave ! - It Has The Force of "We the People"

- (Does "defence" against disease count?)

But-Dave ! - Are You Talking About Biological Warfare ?
-or- The Disease of Obama-Care© ?

- (Can there be "domestic tranquility" without a middle class?)

But-Dave ! - Was there a Middle Class in 1776 ?

and -obtw- But-Dave ! - In The Obama-Nation©
"We the People" would be one big government
Classless Socialist Society.

this has been a 'but-dave' reply by rhf ~ RHF

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 5, 6:34*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 pm, John *wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? *If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

Only if he can prove that a material exchange occurred. Otherwise, it
is pure hearsay and rumor.

(OT) : The Powers Within the US Constitution -wrt- ConstitutionIntentionally Vague
 

On Sep 5, 9:26*am, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
dave wrote:

[...]

What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? *If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

- Since the Constitution gives no power
- whatever to the central government to
- legislate on or control drugs, no federal
- drug "laws" can possibly be constitutional,

The US Constitution gives the US Congress
the Power To Legislate and Make "Laws"
-and- Everything else follows from that . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

The US Constitution Is NOT Intentionally Vague :
The US Constitution "IS" A Broad Brush Frame-Work

the us constitution just read it ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_us_constitution

and every DEA arrest and conviction
is itself illegal. (Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution
for the federal government even _knowing_ what you possess, much
less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider
scope -- but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the
prevailing standards are congenial to you.

With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

(OT) : DAVE Speaks Out on Major Hypocrites and Imperfect Slobs
 

On Sep 5, 10:33*am, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
dave wrote:
[...]
What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

Since the Constitution gives no power whatever to the central government
to legislate on or control drugs, no federal drug "laws" can possibly be
constitutional, and every DEA arrest and conviction is itself illegal.
(Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution for the federal
government even _knowing_ what you possess, much less making it a crime..)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider scope --
but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the prevailing
standards are congenial to you.

With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.

The point sailed right past you. The point being the Founders were
neither clairvoyant nor divinely inspired.

-*They were major hypocrites and therefore
- mere imperfect slobs like the rest of us.

Speak for Yourself Dave
I say : SPEAK FOR YOURSELF DAVE !

dave - you are so 'special' - pal ~ RHF

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 5, 12:11*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:34*am, dave wrote:



bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 pm, John *wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? *If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

- Only if he can prove that a material exchange occurred.
-*Otherwise, it is pure hearsay and rumor.

There are more Laws than that . . .

-and- the Material Facts are what they are

This Drug Deal 'On-the-Radio' would have to
have at least two parties to the conversation.
-if- the Second Party Admits to the Drug Deal
at least you have One-Witness to the Elements
of a Criminal Enterprise and a Criminal Conspiracy
[RICO Act] to Plan and Commit a Crime.
http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp

sound like 'book-em dan-o' ~ RHF

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:


Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. They created a truly
_limited_ government, a unique and highly beneficial accomplishment. It
is a tragedy beyond words that their system has been overthrown.


When Reagan deregulated the media and defunded education he sealed our
fate. There's nothing left to save.

(OT) : DAVE Speaks Out on Major Hypocrites and Imperfect Slobs
 

RHF wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:33 am, wrote:

The point sailed right past you. The point being the Founders were
neither clairvoyant nor divinely inspired.

- They were major hypocrites and therefore
- mere imperfect slobs like the rest of us.

Speak for Yourself Dave
I say : SPEAK FOR YOURSELF DAVE !



You are correct. YOU have nothing in common with our brave ancestors.

(OT) : ?Q? Are the US Declaration of Independence; the US Constitution;and the US Bill of Rights Worthy of Our Praise ?
 

RHF wrote:


I say : Praise Be The US Constitution
and the Founding Fathers - Amen ~ RHF

Plus the US Declaration of Independence Proclaims
Our All American 'Unalienable Rights'*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence


Natural rights are inherent. That's what makes them unalienable. No one
can take them away because no one granted them.

"Nature" and "Nature's God" are just more fluff the great unwashed. The
founders were very skeptical about the idea of living gods.

(OT) : ?Q? Are the US Declaration of Independence; the USConstitution; and the US Bill of Rights Worthy of Our Praise ?
 

On Sep 6, 7:43*pm, RHF wrote:
On Sep 6, 10:38*am, dave wrote:- - RHF wrote:

- -
- - I say : Praise Be The US Constitution
- - and the Founding Fathers - Amen ~ RHF
- -
- - Plus the US Declaration of Independence Proclaims
- - Our All American 'Unalienable Rights'*
- -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

- Natural rights are inherent.
- That's what makes them unalienable.
- No one can take them away
- because no one granted them.

Dave you would be 'naturally' right ;;-}}

- "Nature" and "Nature's God" are
- just more fluff the great unwashed.
- The founders were very skeptical
- about the idea of living gods.

Dave of 'you' - i myself am very "skeptical" ~ RHF

and Dave . . .
How Do You Separate 'Natural-&-Nature' ?
and what is "Nature's God" ?

Dave - 'the idea of living gods'
is man's {humanity's} idea.
Would a God Live {Have Life} As Man Does ?
Can Man's Living Define God's "BE-ing"

Dave - "BE-Ing" -that's- Existing
and Existing may and may not involve
Living and Life as we Humans Define It.

The Universe {Earth, Moon, Sun, Stars} Exists :
Do You Deny It ! -but- Is It Alive ?

The Air, a Rock, Dirt, Water All Exist :
Do You Deny Them ! -but- Are They Alive ?

The Plant, Animal, Insect, Amoeba All Exist :
Do You Deny Them ! -how- Do We Define Alive ?

Humans Exist : Do You Deny This !
Have We Humans Existence ?
Are We Not Living ?
Do We Have Life ?
Are We "BE-ing" Alive ?

God's Existence -or- Not : Does Not Depend on
Humanity and Mankind's Definition of 'Living' [.] ©

Dave - may your 'existence' BE
your "existence" - pal ~ RHF
*.
*.
?Q? Are the US Declaration of Independence;
the US Constitution; and the US Bill of Rights
Worthy of Our Praise ?http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...bbaa4d8989f0ca
*.
I say : Praise Be The US Constitution
and the Founding Fathers - Amen ~ RHF
*.
Plus the US Declaration of Independence Proclaims
Our All American 'Unalienable Rights'*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence
*.
* 'Unalienable Rights' = In-Alienable Rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
*.
Including Out 100% America US 'Bill of Rights'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
*.
God {Allah} Bless All These Founding Documents
and we all say : amen, Amen. and AMEN ! ~ RHF
*.
?Q? Are the US Declaration of Independence;
the US Constitution; and the US Bill of Rights
Worthy of Our Praise ? --- YES I SAY ~ RHF
*.
*.

For a historical document,written in the 18th century, I always
wonder: why is it that laws of an utmost importance way back must be
followed to the letter ? Considering all the incredible advances in
science and lifestyle ( how many small independent farmers do we have
left in this country?), instant communication,planes,trains,space
stations and satellites, the list is much longer than it seems at
first, how can we claim what was a matter of literally life and death
230 years ago must be invariably applied to in modern life ! I just
hope that the Supreme Court justices are mostly normal and decent
human beings and don't interpret the Law in a perverted and demented
fashion... like it happens, quite often.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Actually, what you interpret as "vague" was meant to me, and is a loud
and dramatic statement, it means, "VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT!"

Regards,
JS

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

A few weeks ago, I bought an old metal security/burglar door for $15.00
from that democrap who lives behind that house next door to doggy's
couch.That door is the kind of door that is made of thin wall square
section tubes, up and down, y'all have seen those doors before.

So, a couple of weeks ago I brought that door around front to be sure it
will fit up ok, it will.What it is, that door has some rust (Rust Never
Sleeps) on it and that flimsy screen wire on that door is ripped and
raggety.I am in the process now of fixing that door up so it will look
as good as one of those new doors.What it was though, a couple of weeks
ago when I brought that door around front, those democraps who live
across the street from doggy's couch, they were laughing their democrap
asses off at my door.

Looka here, this neighborhood isn't nowhere near as safe as it used to
be, if ya get me drift? If somebody busts into their democrap house,,,,
I AM GOING TO LAUGH MY IRISH ARSE OFF AT THOSE democraps!
cuhulin

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day wrote:



Then look at the school reports athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

He says there's no violence in schools, but also brags that parents
hit their children, another form of violence.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

John Smith wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Actually, what you interpret as "vague" was meant to me, and is a loud
and dramatic statement, it means, "VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT!"

Regards,
JS

It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking . . .{Tough Love}
 

On Sep 14, 1:30*pm, dave wrote:
f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day *wrote:

Then look at the school reports athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

- He says there's no violence *in schools,
- but also brags that parents hit their children,
- another form of violence.

'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
or out of love and goodness ?

'Special Dave' it's called "Tough Love"
Not Done In Anger -butt- Administered to :
Educated About Right & Wrong
To Discourage Bad Acts and Encourage Good Behavior
Setting A Standard To Gauge Their Actions and Deeds
-wrt- Socially Acceptable Actions on their Part and How
They Impact Others.

America Teach Your Children Well :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9Az6S1nus
To Be Good Americans and Family Members
Proud Patriotic Americans That Love Their Country
Hardworking Self-Supporting Americans With Jobs

God {Allah} Bless The Children - Amen & eaflap ~ RHF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhR36gV6vW4

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 09/14/2010 03:30 PM, dave wrote:
f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day wrote:



Then look at the school reports
athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

He says there's no violence in schools, but also brags that parents hit
their children, another form of violence.
The Stoic principle is, that if the administrator is self controlled,
then the student will learn self control. Teachers, or anyone else who
was emotionally involved do not administer the spanking. That is done by
the principle in his office.

That's not violence. A parent hitting a kid because the parent is angry
is violence. But to teach the kid not to run in the street, is discipline.

Its worth noting the culture is a mix of long term farm families with
1st and 2nd generation Hippies who moved here wanting a healthy place to
raise kids. We all get along just fine.

Most of the hard corps ignorant rednecks got into meth, and moved to the
city where the welfare benefits are more generous and the liquor stores
are closer. Van Buren county pop is 12,000. The Jail only holds 58, of
which half are state and federal prisoners it is paid to keep.

Ergo, the incarceration rate of the population is 0.2%; compare that to
where you live. One time, coming back from out of state at 3AM, I passed
by the basketball court in Leslie. The ball laid on the grass at the
edge of the court in case anyone wanted to play. Consider how long it'd
take to be stolen where you live.

I dont have a house key. Even if I did lock it, out in the country,
nobody'd hear the glass of a window being broken to get in. But there
are no breakins I know about.

15 years ago, there was some stealing started. But folks realized where
the truck that had the same tire print from the crime scenes was, and
used a 30-30 to write an exit visa in the truck, with the implication
that next time, we wont wait for it to be parked. The grandsons, who'd
come to stay with grandpa, moved back to LA.

Back before agribusiness replaced family farms, it was like this all
over rural America. The land here is too steep for the large contiguous
tracts agribusiness likes.
--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

According to http://www.akc.org/breeds/australian_cattle_dog
my little couch buddy doggy is extremely intelligent.How/why she puts up
with me, I just don't know.Maybe she takes pity on me?
http://www.cattledog.com
http://www.acdca.org
WOOF WOOF.
cuhulin

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. Such is the nature of a
republic. People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 9:18*pm, wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:





On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

Yes - they were much smaller than 2010 USA. A lot of history
transpired between the Fall of Greece I and the Fall of Greece II !!!

Modern Greece is, I am afraid, in a position similar to California.
My theory - The European Union, of which they are now a part, holds
the keys to the treasury and the money machine, much like the US
Treasury. The larger conglomeration can print money if it needs to
pay off its debts (albeit at an inflated rate), while the individual
nation-state cannot do this (as Greece used to be able to do). Nether
Greece nor California can print its own $$$ like the larger system, so
they are in economic hot water.

Bruce Jense4n

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 15, 1:11*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:18*pm, wrote:





On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

Yes - they were much smaller than 2010 USA. *A lot of history
transpired between the Fall of Greece I and the Fall of Greece II !!!

Modern Greece is, I am afraid, in a position similar to California.
My theory - The European Union, of which they are now a part, holds
the keys to the treasury and the money machine, much like the US
Treasury. *The larger conglomeration can print money if it needs to
pay off its debts (albeit at an inflated rate), while the individual
nation-state cannot do this (as Greece used to be able to do). *Nether
Greece nor California can print its own $$$ like the larger system, so
they are in economic hot water.

Bruce Jense4n- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That sounds like the 'Big Brother' is not a fiction at all...

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 6:47*pm, Day Brown wrote:
On 09/14/2010 03:30 PM, dave wrote:

f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day wrote:

Then look at the school reports
athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

He says there's no violence in schools, but also brags that parents hit
their children, another form of violence.

- The Stoic principle is, that if the administrator is self
controlled,
- then the student will learn self control. Teachers, or anyone else
who
- was emotionally involved do not administer the spanking. That is
done by
- the principle in his office.

-translation- You got a "D' in Gym Class . . .
Your Daddy Gona Whip Your Ass
.. . . When He Gets Home and I tell him . . .


That's not violence. A parent hitting a kid because the parent is angry
is violence. But to teach the kid not to run in the street, is discipline..



Its worth noting the culture is a mix of long term farm families with
1st and 2nd generation Hippies who moved here wanting a healthy place to
raise kids. We all get along just fine.

Most of the hard corps ignorant rednecks got into meth, and moved to the
city where the welfare benefits are more generous and the liquor stores
are closer. Van Buren county pop is 12,000. The Jail only holds 58, of
which half are state and federal prisoners it is paid to keep.

Ergo, the incarceration rate of the population is 0.2%; compare that to
where you live. One time, coming back from out of state at 3AM, I passed
by the basketball court in Leslie. The ball laid on the grass at the
edge of the court in case anyone wanted to play. Consider how long it'd
take to be stolen where you live.

I dont have a house key. Even if I did lock it, out in the country,
nobody'd hear the glass of a window being broken to get in. But there
are no breakins I know about.

15 years ago, there was some stealing started. But folks realized where
the truck that had the same tire print from the crime scenes was, and
used a 30-30 to write an exit visa in the truck, with the implication
that next time, we wont wait for it to be parked. The grandsons, who'd
come to stay with grandpa, moved back to LA.

Back before agribusiness replaced family farms, it was like this all
over rural America. The land here is too steep for the large contiguous
tracts agribusiness likes.
--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.