USA - United...

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:00 pm

DirtySanchez wrote:
JackANSI wrote: Leave it at that.
Are you lost? This is rockpage. we do not leave well enough alone. We brow-beat til the thread gets locked. Then we start a new one.

New Sig!!!

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:01 pm

lonewolf wrote:
JackANSI wrote:Hawk, you made a great point and the replies reinforced it. Leave it at that.
Yep, those points are great...if you happen to be a left-leaning modern liberal Democrat.

Of course, they have nothing to do with Constitutional intent.

labels don't invalidate the point... Just sayin..

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:26 pm

JackANSI wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
JackANSI wrote:Hawk, you made a great point and the replies reinforced it. Leave it at that.
Yep, those points are great...if you happen to be a left-leaning modern liberal Democrat.

Of course, they have nothing to do with Constitutional intent.
labels don't invalidate the point... Just sayin..

Points do not invalidate the Constitution. Get some principles man.

DirtySanchez · Post by **DirtySanchez** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:32 pm

undercoverjoe wrote: Get some principles man.

I looked on e-bay. Nothing

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:34 pm

JackANSI wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
JackANSI wrote:Hawk, you made a great point and the replies reinforced it. Leave it at that.
Yep, those points are great...if you happen to be a left-leaning modern liberal Democrat.

Of course, they have nothing to do with Constitutional intent.
labels don't invalidate the point... Just sayin..

That is true; however, the Constitution invalidates just about every point he made--except for his point that the big federal government has already flagrantly ignored the Constitution and that is the present state of things.

The crux is that I (and other Constitutionalists) support aid for the poor, education, urban development, etc., etc. The difference is that, Constitutionally, these issues belong to and are the states' responsibilities.

The framers had the vision to know that that societal problems are best kept to the governments that are closest to the people and away from an ineffective central government. They also knew that the main threat to the liberty of any country is the breadth of control the central government has over its people.

We have tried the great social experiments with a big federal government and the results are self-evident: They have failed miserably and brought the government to the brink of bankruptcy.

A few weeks ago, I saw the 1st warning sign. It was like that phrase "irrational exuberance" uttered in 1997 before the 2000 tech bubble burst and the early warnings about the present housing crisis as far back as 2003:

China 'worried' about US Treasury holdings

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_ ... us_economy

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:55 pm

I'm noticing a pattern here.
Replace the word "Constitution" with the word "Bible." It reads the same, the parallels are scary. I noticed it with Rev. Gary Dull a few weeks ago... sudden references to the Constitution as if it was the Bible. He even calls it a Living Document, as in Living Word. He wants you to know that you can't question it... but as there are hundreds of denominations in Protestant Christianity, there are many ways to interpret the Constitution or any document written by men. Each of us chooses the one that suits us, but extremists cannot fathom why you are not in their congregation. They can open a Bible and show you precisely why you are wrong... but the church across the street can show you a different verse to prove them wrong.
Is political fundamentalism as bad as religious fundamentalism? I think so. Both turn more people away than they bring in.--->JMS

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:27 pm

I was thinking similarly as far as just the two major parties (and their subdivisions summed into the two larger categories) and the believers in them.

If you're a republican, replace the word democrat/liberal with "satan" and your favorite republican as "god".

makes for some funny reading

Everything bad is satan's fault, everything good is gods fault.

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:29 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:Points do not invalidate the Constitution. Get some principles man.

I got principles, they just don't include shitting on the little guy. Get some morals man.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:30 pm

songsmith wrote:I'm noticing a pattern here.
Replace the word "Constitution" with the word "Bible." It reads the same, the parallels are scary. I noticed it with Rev. Gary Dull a few weeks ago... sudden references to the Constitution as if it was the Bible. He even calls it a Living Document, as in Living Word. He wants you to know that you can't question it... but as there are hundreds of denominations in Protestant Christianity, there are many ways to interpret the Constitution or any document written by men. Each of us chooses the one that suits us, but extremists cannot fathom why you are not in their congregation. They can open a Bible and show you precisely why you are wrong... but the church across the street can show you a different verse to prove them wrong.
Is political fundamentalism as bad as religious fundamentalism? I think so. Both turn more people away than they bring in.--->JMS

The Constitution is not a guideline or a pamphlet of suggestions. It is the governing document that our federal government is bound to function by. It is not something to be ignored in the name of political expedience or because a group of politicians can garner more votes with bread and circuses.

Unlike the Bible, if the populace is unhappy with its contents, the Constitution has a provision for change. It is called the amendment process. It is not an easy process, but it was not meant to be easy. It was made intentionally difficult for the same reason that we are a republic and not a democracy:

To prevent hasty, regrettable decisions that come about from mob rule.

Johnny, if you like the big, big government, that's fine with me, but if you complain to me in a few years that your standard of living is reduced to that of Mexico City, I will just say "I told you so."

slackin@dabass · Post by **slackin@dabass** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:48 pm

lonewolf wrote:in a few years that your standard of living is reduced to that of Mexico City, I will just say "I told you so".

and that's what it's coming to. i always wanted to live in mexico when i got old and decrepit. i figured 100 american dollars is like a million pesos (exaggeration) but i guess my retirement plans will be ruined unless this federal government pulls it's lobby accepting, free country fucking, debt consolidating head out of it's many "thumbs in a pie" asses. they're all corrupt. and anyone that thinks otherwise is blind. the federal government wasn't meant to have this much power. the states were. that's why it's the united states of america. the states are first in the country's name for crying out loud. i think that in itself shows who was meant to have more "power."

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:09 pm

lonewolf wrote: To prevent hasty, regrettable decisions that come about from mob rule.

Dying to bring up The Iraq War, but that's ancient history to conservatives. It may not have even happened.

--->JMS

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:23 pm

JackANSI wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Points do not invalidate the Constitution. Get some principles man.
I got principles, they just don't include shitting on the little guy. Get some morals man.

You would not know a principle if it hit you in the keister. Go out an help all the little guys you want. Just do not take my hard earned tax money at gunpoint to do your feel good deeds. My morals tell me to avoid people like you like the plague.

Can you show me the line in the Constitution that says.."shit on the little guy"? Classic liberal guilt.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:24 pm

lonewolf wrote:
The Constitution is not a guideline or a pamphlet of suggestions. It is the governing document that our federal government is bound to function by. It is not something to be ignored in the name of political expedience or because a group of politicians can garner more votes with bread and circuses.

The Bible is not a guideline or a pamphlet of suggestions. It is the governing document that humanity is bound to function by. It is not something to be ignored in the name of convenience or because The World can garner more popularity.

Preach it!

Note: Normally, I'd say that putting words in someone's mouth is disrespectful, and I don't really mean any disrespect. It's just that it fit so well with what I posted earlier. Sorry, Wolf, I owe you one.--->JMS

DirtySanchez · Post by **DirtySanchez** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:28 pm

undercoverjoe wrote: You would not know a principle if it hit you in the keister.

Happened to me a bunch in High School. Fuckin Socialists

Govt paid to smack my ass. haha

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:52 pm

undercoverjoe wrote: Can you show me the line in the Constitution that says.."shit on the little guy"? Classic liberal guilt.

Classic neoconservative sense of entitlement.

--->JMS

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:17 pm

songsmith wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
The Constitution is not a guideline or a pamphlet of suggestions. It is the governing document that our federal government is bound to function by. It is not something to be ignored in the name of political expedience or because a group of politicians can garner more votes with bread and circuses.

The Bible is not a guideline or a pamphlet of suggestions. It is the governing document that humanity is bound to function by. It is not something to be ignored in the name of convenience or because The World can garner more popularity.

Preach it!

Note: Normally, I'd say that putting words in someone's mouth is disrespectful, and I don't really mean any disrespect. It's just that it fit so well with what I posted earlier. Sorry, Wolf, I owe you one.--->JMS

Another indication of a political extremist tendency: soundbites (er, postbites, if you like). When you add this in the full context, it pretty much neuters your blunt instrument:

"Unlike the Bible, if the populace is unhappy with its contents, the Constitution has a provision for change. It is called the amendment process. It is not an easy process, but it was not meant to be easy. It was made intentionally difficult for the same reason that we are a republic and not a democracy:

To prevent hasty, regrettable decisions that come about from mob rule."

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:25 pm

songsmith wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote: Can you show me the line in the Constitution that says.."shit on the little guy"? Classic liberal guilt.
Classic neoconservative sense of entitlement. --->JMS

Be specific please. Where am I demonstrating a sense of entitlement? As a libertarian, I am doing the exact opposite, asking to government to get the hell out of my personal life. Get the hell out of my wallet. I am not demanding any entitlement. Those who get an earned income tax refund are the groveling masses demanding an entitlement of a tax refund even when they pay no federal taxes. Look inward before accusing others of having a sense of entitlement.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:29 pm

Just think of how much money the government would have if not for all the social programs and bullshit spending that is unnecessary.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:00 pm

lonewolf wrote:[Another indication of a political extremist tendency: soundbites (er, postbites, if you like). When you add this in the full context, it pretty much neuters your blunt instrument:

Okay, I'll allow it. Now to quote the Fearless Leader:
"Mr. Snerdly, please play soundbite number 37!"
I totally Limbaugh-ed you, and you called me on it... sort of. The Bible contradicts itself numerous times, the weakness of documents written over generations by many men. If you don't agree with something, find another verse that you agree with, and bend it's context to suit. For instance, the Second Amendment's language only allows for gun ownership as it relates to armed response to tyranny, but we use guns for whatever reason we please. (The PA state constitution does allow for firearm ownership without regard to a militia, BTW.) "Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. -- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's all it says. So, you can go to the Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, or some other document, and link this to that, and TA-DA! You can do whatever you want. It's all in how you personally view the issue and your particular interpretation.
The Bible is very clear that women are to be subserviant to men. As time has passed, it's become clear that a stance like that is awful and detrimental, so most people simply reinterpret it to match their situation.
You can, indeed, change the Bible, or at least the response to it.--->JMS

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:33 pm

songsmith wrote:The Bible contradicts itself numerous times, the weakness of documents written over generations by many men....--->JMS

Don't forget the numerous translations and the parts added or left out for political purposes.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:38 pm

Not that I'm in charge of this thread, I'm not. But it has side tracked to where I ask it not go. I know who wants to spend , "nothing", "less", "more". So do you.

I asked for no pissing contests relative to social programs.

Deal with and discuss things AS THEY ARE now. Not how you wish things were.

Please re-read the thread opening. Media negativity influences on the masses ? Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed on the role of government yet they worked together. Thank God they could overlook problems between them for the overall good of our country !

That is the point of this thread. Can we overlook our differences for a common unity ? I don't know ? I'm asking you ?

Extraordinare conversation so far ! Thanks...

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:58 am

You are asking water and oil to mix, IMHO.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:09 am

Hawk wrote:Not that I'm in charge of this thread, I'm not. But it has side tracked to where I ask it not go. I know who wants to spend , "nothing", "less", "more". So do you.

I asked for no pissing contests relative to social programs.

Deal with and discuss things AS THEY ARE now. Not how you wish things were.

Please re-read the thread opening. Media negativity influences on the masses ? Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed on the role of government yet they worked together. Thank God they could overlook problems between them for the overall good of our country !

That is the point of this thread. Can we overlook our differences for a common unity ? I don't know ? I'm asking you ?

Extraordinare conversation so far ! Thanks...

Yea Bill, things as they are now..........TOO MUCH SPENDING! TOO MUCH BULLSHIT PROGRAMS! GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG! USE THE MONEY FOR IT'S INTENDED PURPOSES ONLY!

Totally relevant Bill, and I used your special tactic of using caps lock!

And by the way Bill, I love ya man! Can't wait till Wednesday!

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Thu May 21, 2009 8:25 pm

lonewolf wrote:We have tried the great social experiments with a big federal government and the results are self-evident: They have failed miserably and brought the government to the brink of bankruptcy.

A few weeks ago, I saw the 1st warning sign. It was like that phrase "irrational exuberance" uttered in 1997 before the 2000 tech bubble burst and the early warnings about the present housing crisis as far back as 2003:

China 'worried' about US Treasury holdings

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_ ... us_economy

Another warning sign:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30854901/site/14081545

U.S. treasury bonds next? Maybe not next, but its moving in that direction.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Thu May 21, 2009 9:14 pm

Hawk wrote: I could go on too. In each scenario.

And you would still be wrong on each scenario.

Bill, you are such a cool guy, but so wrong on everything you post about on politics. Are you in favor of Benito Hussein taking over the Banking and Automobile Industries? That is pure Fascism, are you OK with that?