1. #51
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    It was private industry that gave us our wealth, not government.
    I always laugh outrageously at comments like this.

    You're truly naive to believe that public investment in the form of health, education, infrastructure, or security have not had a positive impact on development of the US as a superpower.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  2. #52
    Forum Member
    jlcooke3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    No one seems to care the 4th or 5th Ammendment has been demolished. But listen to the cries of outrage if someone wants to ban a firearm that has no sporting purpose.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    This is exactly the same type of activity we (the US) would criticize the KGB for performing on their citizens.

    I guess my belief in the Constitution goes beyond yours.
    I find it ironic that in one post you clearly state your support and belief in the Constitution yet in a previous post you clearly place little to no value in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution by limiting its purpose to "sporting". I'm sure we will disagree on this subject but it is one that I truly believe in. I believe that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted because of another very important document, a document that many of us relegate to history without realizing its importance today. That document is the Declaration of Independence, in that document you will find the following;
    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.*

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.* That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,*--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    I truly believe that our forefathers understood that their may come a time in the course of this great nation that the people would have to once again throw of the chains of tyranny and ensure their future security. In order to accomplish this the citizens of this nation would require arms. Not sporting arms, not hunting arms, not military arms, just arms. Why the term "arms" because in the 18th century the term "arms" was given to mean any type of weapon. In todays terms "arms" should mean the same thing. If as a law abiding citizen of the United States of America desire to lawfully own a firearm, be it a muzzle loading antique used for show or a fully automatic assault rifle, then as long as I legally own it and legally use it then there should be no prohibition on it. Invariably those that mirror my thoughts get labled as "gun nuts" or "anti-government". Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an advocate for safe and legal gun ownership for all citizens. I believe that it is my responsibility to protect myself, my family, and my government and that I should not rely on someone else for that protection.

    On anther note I notice that yourself and I both use the terms "rights" and "citizens" in the same sentence. I myself believe that the only persons who are "entitled" to the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are; U.S. citizens and legal guests of the United States. I believe that "our" rights should not be transferred to non-citizens whether they be illegal aliens or combatants against America. You are correct in stating that our 4th and 5th rights are being trampled on. The government should not be allowed to listen in on my conversations without good cause and a legal warrant. I have nothing to hide but I have everything to loose. For those who don't believe me read 1984 by George Orwell, and get back to me. As far as non citizens, i.e. illegal aliens and combatants our Constitution should not afford them the same rights as it does a citizen.

  3. #53
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Eh? Surely you're not going to sit there and state that liberal policies and ideology promote SUV's and "gas guzzlers" are you?
    Do you see where I said that? Why does a liberal always have to try winning an argument by putting words in their opponents mouth?

    Since you're inept at reading comprehension I'll spell it out for you. We did this do ourselves. We chose to drive inefficient vehicles and live 30 minutes from work. Our rise in power in the last century relied more on the supply of cheap oil than any other factor.

    But these factors were exacerbated by the fact that liberal sandal-wearing, granola-eating, tree hugging environ-fascists go into a tissy fit anytime someone wants to drill a new oil well on US soil. Drilling for new oil will not solve this problem, but it will lessen the impact.
    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Conservative/republican policies and ideas concerning deregulation and the "free market" are well known. It's a complete scam on the American people, and always has been. I mean, the poor oil companies are just struggling to survive in these hard times.
    Yes, free markets are a scam. Shame on someone for seeking to maximize their profits. It is the basic purpose of any business.
    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    A crystal ball?? What the hell are you talking about? Chimpy McFlightsuit just doesn't give a damn. Nearly every economist and expert analyst in the nation was predicting this mess for years, while King George fiddled away.
    So why didn't you listen to them, and why didn't you buy a hybrid, and then STFU. And since you don't have an all inclusive list of economic experts & analysts with a tally of their predictions, your claim is unsubstantiated. It's not the governments responsibility to "create" low oil prices. If you want to live in a place where the government does that for you, then learn Spanish and move to Cuba.

    If you think price controls is the way to go, then you've economic amnesia. Try reading something from someone who know more than you & I.

    Pelosi has said that she wants Bush to release the Strategic Oil Reserves to lower the price. So it's clear that she knows that increasing supply cause a drop in price. So why is she so stupid to prohibit any legislation that would allow for an increase in supply by drilling for it close to home?

    She doesn't understand that releasing reserves in not a sustainable action. And if we lose those reserves and encounter a shortage, we are totally screwed.
    Last edited by txgp17; 08-03-2008 at 05:58 PM.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  4. #54
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlcooke3 View Post
    I find it ironic that in one post you clearly state your support and belief in the Constitution yet in a previous post you clearly place little to no value in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution by limiting its purpose to "sporting".
    JCooke. That is a very thoughtful post. Thank you. I agree with your premise regarding the Declaration of Independence as long as one recognizes the D of I is a bold statement of philosophical priciples and (to us)eternal verities that control, or ought to control, the governance of men and nations.

    It is, however, no nuts and bolts model for how to conduct that task, of governance of a free people. The Founders tried a form of national government devoted to the ideas of consent of the governed to the nth degree, under the Articles of Confederation - and it bombed. Similarly, one reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War was the weakness of the central government that it established, in deference to its states’ rights consent of the governed philosophy - yielding a government so unable to function effectively that an exasperated Jefferson Davis remarked, “If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone, ‘Died of a Theory’”.

    So that sort of model has been tried, more than once, and it’s failed.

    The Founders were more clever (or at least more flexible in the connection between their philosophic belief and their addressing of reality. They also recognized as few others, in that day or since have that ideas are powerful things - so powerful that any one, allowed untrammeled authority, inevitably becomes tyrannical. Majority rule, untempered, becomes the whim of the mob. The wholesale adoption of a “consent of the governed” philosophy results in a government with power so atomized that it becomes ineffectual, and so not just unable to protect liberty but inimical to it. No concept, however worthy in the abstract, could or should be given unlimited sway. Ideogical conclusions, and human nature, were never to be entirely trusted.

    And so the Constitution was born - the most exquisite counterbalancing of rights and responsibilities, powers and obligations, ceded authority and retained autonomy, that has ever been crafted. It’s a work of collective genius, and it very deliberately lacks much -in the way of high-flown rhetoric like that which Jefferson was able to include in the Declaration. It’s worth noting that Jefferson’s editor on the Declaration, Franklin, was present at the Constitutional Convention - if anyone had authorty to call the developing document a betrayal of the older manifesto, it was him. Yet at the Convention’s end, he deemed the sunburst pattern on the back of Washington’s chair to be a rising, not a setting, sun.

    A long winded response to be sure. I hope it makes my point regarding the infringements upon the Bill of Rights.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #55
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,032

    Default

    scfire86...

    So, no response from you. Hm, I didn't think it would be this easy to get you to see the light.

    Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, just like your desire to protect the 4th and 5th amendment. A shame you want to pick and choose to fit your agenda.

    As for me I would protect all your rights. Including the right to free speech even when you distort the facts and speak on a topic where you have apparently no first hand knowledge.

    Have a nice day.

  6. #56
    Forum Member
    jlcooke3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I agree with your premise regarding the Declaration of Independence as long as one recognizes the D of I is a bold statement of philosophical priciples and (to us)eternal verities that control, or ought to control, the governance of men and nations.
    I believe we both see it in the same light. The Declaration of Independence, at least the preamble, is akin to what we would call a mission statement. A guiding force. The Constitution on the other hand is more of our Standard Operating Procedure's for the nation's laws.

    The Founders were more clever (or at least more flexible in the connection between their philosophic belief and their addressing of reality. They also recognized as few others, in that day or since have that ideas are powerful things - so powerful that any one, allowed untrammeled authority, inevitably becomes tyrannical.
    I believe it to be more ideals than ideas there is a distinct if subtle difference.
    Majority rule, untempered, becomes the whim of the mob. The wholesale adoption of a “consent of the governed” philosophy results in a government with power so atomized that it becomes ineffectual, and so not just unable to protect liberty but inimical to it. No concept, however worthy in the abstract, could or should be given unlimited sway. Ideogical conclusions, and human nature, were never to be entirely trusted.
    I understand where you are going with this particular line of thought. My only dissenting remarks would be to the "consent of the governed". Governments of any kind only exist at the behest of the people. This isn't so much a governmental process as more of a social condition of people as a whole. People allow themselves to be ruled, the main reason that governments do not come and go as whims of the people is change. No matter how tyrannical the government, with a few exceptions of course, most governments realize that their continued rule rest solely on keeping the majority of its citizens complacent enough to fear a change of government.
    And so the Constitution was born - the most exquisite counterbalancing of rights and responsibilities, powers and obligations, ceded authority and retained autonomy, that has ever been crafted. It’s a work of collective genius, and it very deliberately lacks much -in the way of high-flown rhetoric like that which Jefferson was able to include in the Declaration. It’s worth noting that Jefferson’s editor on the Declaration, Franklin, was present at the Constitutional Convention - if anyone had authorty to call the developing document a betrayal of the older manifesto, it was him. Yet at the Convention’s end, he deemed the sunburst pattern on the back of Washington’s chair to be a rising, not a setting, sun.

    A long winded response to be sure. I hope it makes my point regarding the infringements upon the Bill of Rights.
    A very thoughtful post indeed. While it definitely makes your point regarding my inclusion of the Declaration of Independence into the discussion your points regarding the Bill of Rights is for all intense purposes "hidden" within your reply. It's what many of us would term a "politicians reply" you answer the question so to speak without really answering the question. Well done.

    I would like your thoughts on 2 points I brought up.
    1. Should one right guaranteed to us in the Constitution's Bill of Rights be limited more than any other right. For example at what point does a citizens right to keep and bear arms become any less important than his right to be secure from illegal search and seizures.

    2. Who is granted these rights in the Constitution? Is it a citizen of the United States of America? Is it anyone who is on American soil? Or is it anyone we come in contact with?

    On second thought we made need to start a new thread as this doesn't exactly fall in line with the orginal posters theme.

  7. #57
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    scfire86...

    Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, just like your desire to protect the 4th and 5th amendment. A shame you want to pick and choose to fit your agenda.
    Someone (maybe you since it's Sunday and I'm too lazy to scroll up) that auto weapons that are legally owned have been used in few if any crimes. I could make the conclusion that it is the tight regulation (not specified in the Bill of Rights) that is the reason there is little criminal activity.

    And BTW. I agree. If I had the ability and resources I would own a 1928A1 Thompson. One of my neighbors carried one in VN when he was sent there as an "advisor" during the Kennedy administration. He said it weighed it a ton while carrying through the jungle but it delivered a punch when it was needed most.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #58
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlcooke3 View Post
    I would like your thoughts on 2 points I brought up.
    1. Should one right guaranteed to us in the Constitution's Bill of Rights be limited more than any other right. For example at what point does a citizens right to keep and bear arms become any less important than his right to be secure from illegal search and seizures.
    I would have to give this some thought. It's a question I've never considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlcooke3 View Post
    2. Who is granted these rights in the Constitution? Is it a citizen of the United States of America? Is it anyone who is on American soil? Or is it anyone we come in contact with?
    I think I might know where you're going with this as it relates to our involvement in the Middle East and our incarceration of individuals. While it may or may not be legal is something that is best left up to the legal beagles. However, from a moralistic perspective (if one views that as important)we invaded Iraq with the moral high ground of not treating people like Saddam (improper incarceration, lack of due process, speedy trial etc). Yet with the open ended internments at Gitmo there is a PR angle being used against us in just that manner. I won't get into the differences between what has been construed as torture by Saddam versus what occurred at Abu Ghraib. While I don't approve what occurred in Abu Ghraib it is certainly less severe than what was occurring there during Saddam's tenure.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #59
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Someone (maybe you since it's Sunday and I'm too lazy to scroll up) that auto weapons that are legally owned have been used in few if any crimes. I could make the conclusion that it is the tight regulation (not specified in the Bill of Rights) that is the reason there is little criminal activity.

    And BTW. I agree. If I had the ability and resources I would own a 1928A1 Thompson. One of my neighbors carried one in VN when he was sent there as an "advisor" during the Kennedy administration. He said it weighed it a ton while carrying through the jungle but it delivered a punch when it was needed most.
    I guess you missed my point about the fully automaitc weapons. The point is those used in crimes are NOT legally owned. Do you think the converted AK-47's used in the LA bank robbery were legally owned? Do you think the miriad of automatic weapons used by gangbangers and drug dealers are legally owned? The vast overwhelming majority of fully automatic weapons used in crimes are illegally purchased and owned. The strict regulation does not do a single damn thing to prevent that. If we were serious about ending gun crime here is what we would do, anytime a gun was used in a crime additional time is added that can't be plea bargained away. So even if the criminal gets a slap on the wrist for robbing the 7-11 he still gets 10 or 20 years for using a gun. No parole for that part of the sentence. You serve it all. We don't need more laws punishing those who own firearms legally, we need to enforce what we have against criminals and leave law abiders alone. By the way I have no problem with background checks to ensure that criminals don't acquire guns through legal sources.

    I guess one thing we agree on is the Thompson...nothing like a good old .45 caliber classic Tommy Gun. Which by the way until 1934 you could go down to the local hardware store and buy just like you could buy a shovel or a hammer.

  10. #60
    Forum Member
    jlcooke3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I think I might know where you're going with this as it relates to our involvement in the Middle East and our incarceration of individuals. While it may or may not be legal is something that is best left up to the legal beagles. However, from a moralistic perspective (if one views that as important)we invaded Iraq with the moral high ground of not treating people like Saddam (improper incarceration, lack of due process, speedy trial etc). Yet with the open ended internments at Gitmo there is a PR angle being used against us in just that manner. I won't get into the differences between what has been construed as torture by Saddam versus what occurred at Abu Ghraib. While I don't approve what occurred in Abu Ghraib it is certainly less severe than what was occurring there during Saddam's tenure.
    Actually I was thinking of two specific instances.
    1. Terrorist/Combatant detainees and whether or not they should receive the same protection under our Constitution in regards to civilian law or should they be held under military law. My personal thoughts on this is that these particular individuals whether captured overseas or in the United States should be prosecuted according to military law.

    2. Illegal Aliens that commit crimes on U.S. soil. At what point does the rights afforded to U.S. citizens carry over to those who are not citizens and are not here legally?

    We'll skip the torture debate for now as I was thinking more inline with what due process rights, search and seizure rights, etc. that non-citizens should be entitled to.

  11. #61
    Forum Member
    edge1317's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    If we were serious about ending gun crime here is what we would do, anytime a gun was used in a crime additional time is added that can't be plea bargained away. So even if the criminal gets a slap on the wrist for robbing the 7-11 he still gets 10 or 20 years for using a gun. No parole for that part of the sentence. You serve it all.
    I like this idea alot but I can't see this working in the real world. We will use 15 years "must serve all time" as the punishment for using a firearm in the act of a crime. Say the criminal can plea down the crime to a one year sentence. So if the criminal pleas the crime he will get 16 years, but if he fights it he may be found not guilty or if found guilty he will serve say 18 years (I have no idea how much time crimes actually will give you, it's just an example.). I figure given that choice many criminals would risk those 2 extra years to take the case to court to attempt to avoid the mandatory 15 year period. This will result in much more work for our court system, bogging it down even more. With this mandatory sentence our prisons and jails will fill and become overcrowded, where are we going to put all the inmates that we simply can't let out for 15 years?

    I think it would lower gun crimes but we would need the resources to make it work for a longer period of time.

  12. #62
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edge1317 View Post
    I like this idea alot but I can't see this working in the real world. We will use 15 years "must serve all time" as the punishment for using a firearm in the act of a crime. Say the criminal can plea down the crime to a one year sentence. So if the criminal pleas the crime he will get 16 years, but if he fights it he may be found not guilty or if found guilty he will serve say 18 years (I have no idea how much time crimes actually will give you, it's just an example.). I figure given that choice many criminals would risk those 2 extra years to take the case to court to attempt to avoid the mandatory 15 year period. This will result in much more work for our court system, bogging it down even more. With this mandatory sentence our prisons and jails will fill and become overcrowded, where are we going to put all the inmates that we simply can't let out for 15 years?

    I think it would lower gun crimes but we would need the resources to make it work for a longer period of time.
    Okay, you say my idea won't work because of prison space. Let me hear your plan. I would love to see something actually be done to penalize criminals while leaving me and my legally owned and used firearms alone.

    If it was up to me I would elimnate plea bargains and set mandatory sentencing that NO ONE not even federal agencies can supercede. Crime does pay in this country and every day proves it more and more.

  13. #63
    Forum Member
    1835Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Door Village, IN
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1835Wayne
    YOUR rights have been trampled on!!

    Excuse me????

    Have you been paying any attention whatsoever to whats been happening to our "rights" since GWB and his morality police have been in charge? And I guess you also missed the fact that your government of the people, by the people and for the people can now spy on you and detain you without just cause.

    Talk about mindless...
    Well Dave, I am not talking about the current adminstration. I am as appaled at some of the things they have done as you are. I am talking about what just happened. I am discussing THAT issue, not everything else under the sun.

    I disdain a good bit of the "Patriot" act. I also disdain the actions of Nancy Pelosi. Do you have anything to say about her??

    I can not call what she has done an "adjournment". It was a hijacking.
    I.A.C.O.J. Charter Member
    "Chet, get an inch and a half on that!"

    "Not for fame or reward,Not for place or rank. Not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity. But in simple obedience to duty as they understood it. These men suffered,sacrificed,dared all, and died. Let us never forget our fallen friends."

  14. #64
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    txgp17

    You seem to take issue with my statement that I am a conservative. I am fairly certain that if you took a poll of some the posters here that have been around longer than a week, you would find almost unanimous agreement on the subject. What bothers you so much?

    If I state that the Republican controlled Congress and the Republican Administration completely squandered the opportunity to advance their agenda and continue the prosperity begun in the Reagan Administration, that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.

    If I state that the President has performed admirably in many situations, but has been a complete embarrasment in terms of illegal immigration, taking years to formulate a cogent policy on the war in Iraq and in developing energy polciy, that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.

    If I state that I fully and completely support the constitutional right the keep and bear arms, yet I believe two important things; certain people should not have weapons and people shouldn't have certain weapons, that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.

    Many people have trouble with the distinction between being a conservative and being a Republican. I don't.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  15. #65
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I'm sure you'll be just as happy with the infringements of the 4th Ammendment (such as warrantless wiretapping) when a Dem is in the White House.
    Would this be the same Democrat (Barack Obama) who voted to renew teh Patriot Act?

    Those facts can be pesky things. Many Democrats voted to renew it, in its entirety.

    As for the 4th adn 5th amendment infringments, I am appaled by them as much as any attempt on the other 18 active amendments (being that 12 was repeales.) However, iyou shallenge them in court, the same court that ruled that the phrase "the People" means the same thing in the seconds as it does in many other amendments.

    Convenient that you forgot about the legal challenges brought against the holding of people in Gitmo - and the same 9 justices ruling on them.......and that the President could/would not act on their listening without the culpability of Congress as well.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  16. #66
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    txgp17

    You seem to take issue with my statement that I am a conservative.

    Many people have trouble with the distinction between being a conservative and being a Republican. I don't.
    I don't have any trouble discerning a conservative from a Republican. And I didn't say that you weren't conservative. There's a difference between being "conservative" and being "the most conservative one on here," which is how you described yourself.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  17. #67
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    111

    Default

    I'm sorry, but the moment you start picking and choosing when parts of the Consitution to follow and ignoring the rest, you begin the end of the nation.

    Pelosi was out of line. Sorry, but when there are objections to a motion, you don't just do what you want anyways. That's not how our system works. I don't care what party someone is part of. Right is right, wrong is wrong. What is there to debate? Seriously?

  18. #68
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    I've nothing to hide. Go ahead. Look all you want. The ones who are afraid are the ones with something to hide.
    The problem is that there is now a legal precedent. Yeah the current administration is looking at one group. But another administration can turn it right around and look at another group that they do not like - and you might be a member of.

    Government, "controlled" by either political party in this country needs to be watched , because it will inevitably abuse its powers.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  19. #69
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Now, just how do you figure that?
    It is a novel subject called mathematics. A high figure I feel, but that is how he derived it.


    Federal gas tax of 18 cents and state gas taxes vary significantly. Quite a chunk of change in reality, whiel our highways, roads, and bridges literally crumble away.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  20. #70
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Wow. What a fact-filled response. You really knocked that one out of the park, didn't you? Was someone else setting policy for all those years? Surely George W. "I haven't heard anything about four dollar a gallon gas" Bush isn't to blame.
    Can the righties get any dumber??
    LOL, sorry I didn't take the time to contribute to this high brow, so important discussion..

    Give me a break.

    Just save us all the time, and in your replies simply put, "It's all Bush's Fault".

    OH boy, if Obama wins... what on earth will you do??
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  21. #71
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    No, officially, recess had not begun. Voices from BOTH sides of the aisle were demanding an electronic vote on whether to approve the motion to adjourn. Why was Nancy so afraid to allow it to continue? Why did she cut off the microphones and cameras? Why were the lights turned out? And, lastly, why were the reporters not only thrown out of the gallery, but out of the building entirely? What was she afraid of?

    Or did she have to leave immediately to start her vacation, because she would lose time due to that pesky that fuel stop (because she was denied that 767 she wanted so that she could fly back home non-stop?)

    Just how much ARE the greenies paying her to fook the american people?
    Stop introducing facts!

    You fail to address the chief argument, "it's all Bush's fault!".

    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  22. #72
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I'm sure you'll be just as happy with the infringements of the 4th Ammendment (such as warrantless wiretapping) when a Dem is in the White House.
    The program you refer to is the monitoring of communications from a known terrorist from outside the US with individuals inside the US.

    I hope the monitoring continues.

    General Hayden (Director of the NSA, and a member of our intelligence community) stressed the NSA respect for the Fourth Amendment, stating at the National Press Club on January 23, 2006 that, "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such."


    OH and Obama already said he wouldn't use this sort of program.
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 08-04-2008 at 08:27 AM.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  23. #73
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Now, just how do you figure that?
    It is posted at a lot of the staions around here

    however The taxes behind a $4 gallon of gas: The Real Deal

    Nearly 33 cents of every gallon you buy goes to Albany. And on a $4 gallon of gasoline, if there's no cap, the county gets 4 percent, or 15 cents.

    Add it all up, and you’re paying just about 67 cents in taxes on one gallon of gas.
    ...
    New Yorkers pay the most taxes on gasoline in the country, followed by Hawaiians and Californians who pay just over 60 cents a gallon
    I wonder if it is a coincidence that the 2 most liberal states in the nation pay the highest taxes?

  24. #74
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Sorry Scarecrow, you're wrong a bit here. the arctic circle lays at 66 degrees 33 mins and there is no oil coming out of there by Canada. Some companies like HBOG, Dome Petroleum and PetroCanada drilled there and found oil alright, but its still there because its too hard and expensive to get south. The Noggies and the Cloggies are nowhere near drilling inside the arctic circle and while Russia has done a bit, its still in the ground too. Drilling in the wildlife refuge may make a difference in a long term outlook, but it would be 20 years before any appreciable difference would be felt in the lower 48. Plain and simple is there needs to be a lot more effort put into an alternative energy source and it sure as heck won't be wind or bio fuels.

    Had to dig for this one. It came out a few weeks ago
    Oil in the Arctic — The New Northwest Passage? from the article
    Big Oil already has experience in the Arctic — the development of Alaska’s North Slope in the 1970s brought in such giants as BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips, all of which currently jointly own and operate the 800-mile long Alyeska Pipeline, which links the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay to the port of Valdez. Russian and Canadian companies have had similar success in exploiting onshore Arctic oil and gas assets in their countries.

  25. #75
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I always laugh outrageously at comments like this.

    You're truly naive to believe that public investment in the form of health, education, infrastructure, or security have not had a positive impact on development of the US as a superpower.
    Not what I said. What I said is business made this country wealthy, government stands in the way of wealth. In fact, through environmental, safety, workers rights and NAFTA we are pushing jobs off shore. Not saying any of those things are bad, just that there are consequences.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. FF safety/chicken BBQs
    By princessAJ in forum U.S. States
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 12:57 PM
  2. Chicken Fry on Saturday 6-24
    By rustyknobbs in forum Illinois
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 08:19 AM
  3. Subservient Chicken
    By EMTSteve in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2004, 02:22 PM
  4. Keithsburg FD Fish & Chicken Fry
    By emtbecka in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-30-2003, 09:13 AM
  5. August Fire Scenario #2: BBQ Chicken Anyone?
    By Dalmation90 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-08-1999, 10:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register