Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

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.

---

And it can be argued that business did its very best to screw people until government intervened. Unless you believe things like child labor and absence of workplace safety things are detrimental. Business doen't care about the worker. I have long advocated that imported goods be produced by countries that have the same workplace and environmental protections as the US. That would at least even the playing field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

ROFLMAO!!!!! First you trash the 2nd amendment, then cry about the 4th and 5th. You cannot selectively pick which part of the constitution you favor. It's an all or nothing.

---

I never said I was against gun ownership. I challenge you to find any place where I've stated that. I have stated I don't see the purpose in ownership of some weapons. Such as the one I detailed earlier. If you'd been around longer than "all day" you'd know I own several weapons. While I will give others the collectors or target shooters value, I can live with assault style weapons from being denied to the civilian populace. IMO there is no value to ownership and all those collectors will manage just fine without them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

Although, I haven't seen any citizens rights violated here. We want to be bale to listen to conversations of non-citizens in foreign countries. Seems we should have the right to inspect that which is coming into the country.

---

The Executive Branch has maintained that obtaining a warrant via the current procedure is too "cumbersome" and they should be exempted. This is in spite of the fact they have a special court available 24/7 and can obtain warrants retroactively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

wonder if it is a coincidence that the 2 most liberal states in the nation pay the highest taxes?

---

Do you also wonder if it is also a coincidence that both those states are two with the highest GDP (CA being the highest) and both contribute far more in federal taxes than they receive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

My friend, we cannot afford either candidate with all of their spending plans. We need a candidate who will cut spending, not increase it. My previous predictions were that our country would crumble within the next 100 years. With the recent group of spenders, increased energy cost, combined with China's dominance of us, I believe the time frame is 50 years or less.

---

These candidates don't exist in the two party system and the American people don't want them if they did.

I think you are overly pessimistic, I don't think we will crumble. The country goes through cycles of growth and decline, but overwhelming growth over the long period.

China is a concern, but China needs us more. We are the consumers of the world, and China is the producer of those goods.

Idealogy will change as more money goes to china and more information, which they will struggle to control. The internet may do to China what Reagan did to the USSR.

both parties are awful, and they don't care about the working man/woman. they are different sides of the same coin. bush portrayed himself as a cowboy from texas, when in reality he's a prep school cheerleader from connecticut. he's a wuss. most of these politicians have nothing in common with the average person. they grovel to the corporations because they are the ones really running this country. corporations get welfare then jet out of the country with their money so they don't have to pay taxes. everyone argues about who's responsible for the gas prices and the answer is the ones who are profiting from them.

the whole liberal/conservative arguement is a red herring. its a divide and conquer strategy. last time i checked everyone who is middle class or below is getting screwed regardless of age, race, religion, or gender. i have a friend who has an MBA and he's working 3 part time jobs (one delivering subs) because he can't find a full time job. i have a master's degree and can't even get an interview (in the private sector) in the field i studied, and i graduated with honors and was voted one of eight outstanding members of UW-Milwaukee's student body. but that's life. i got to get in where i fit in, and i'm just a working class guy. i'm conservative about some things and liberal about others. i don't place myself in a box.

our system is screwed, and it's the fault of both parties. the bill of rights has been eroded. the only one left is the one about quartering troops. pelosi sucks along with the rest of them.

Without reading much of the thread past the first two posts, I will say that this is the one time that "W" can and should step up to the Constitutional plate, and call Congress back for a special session to deal with the Energy Bill. He has NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain for the Nation, the GOP, and your wallet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

And it can be argued that business did its very best to screw people until government intervened. Unless you believe things like child labor and absence of workplace safety things are detrimental. Business doen't care about the worker. I have long advocated that imported goods be produced by countries that have the same workplace and environmental protections as the US. That would at least even the playing field.


I never said I was against gun ownership. I challenge you to find any place where I've stated that. I have stated I don't see the purpose in ownership of some weapons. Such as the one I detailed earlier. If you'd been around longer than "all day" you'd know I own several weapons. While I will give others the collectors or target shooters value, I can live with assault style weapons from being denied to the civilian populace. IMO there is no value to ownership and all those collectors will manage just fine without them.


The Executive Branch has maintained that obtaining a warrant via the current procedure is too "cumbersome" and they should be exempted. This is in spite of the fact they have a special court available 24/7 and can obtain warrants retroactively.


Do you also wonder if it is also a coincidence that both those states are two with the highest GDP (CA being the highest) and both contribute far more in federal taxes than they receive?

---

Way too easy
Bureau of Economic Analysis - Regional Economic Accounts List by state per capita. NY is 3rd, CA is 6th. Delaware and CT top the list.

And yes, business did try to screw people. But it is business who makes the money and brings the money in. Government and it's agencies are without a doubt a burden on the economy, you might say, government taxes the economy.

Quote:

---

I have long advocated that imported goods be produced by countries that have the same workplace and environmental protections as the US.

---

Great idea, just try to make it happen. Want proof, go watch people shop at WalMart. Heck watch them shop anywhere. Ever see someone go to several car dealers just to get the best deal. How many times have you seen someone go back and forth between two dealers to save a couple hundred dollars. Bottom line is, the American people don't really care about ethics and morals when they spend their money. All they want is what is cheapest. I used to work in retail and I pushed made in the USA goods. Many still want for the cheaper Chinese junk. Funny part, the Chinese junk got replaced on an annual basis. The good stuff lasted years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

My 3 cents on these issues.

1. These are not US citizens, in fact, they are foreigners accused of acts of war against the US. Certainly, the U.S. constitution does not apply. Things that would apply are the Geneva Convention, international law, and military law.
You automatically assume that this issue is confined to just foreigners. What you fail to see or you just ignore is the full implications of this question. The United States is waging a "War on Terror". If we are at war with terrorism as a whole then does it not stand to reason that if a citizen of this country commits a terrorist act shouldn't he/she be tried as a enemy combatant. Now think real hard about the consequences if this theory holds true. Police and DA's around this country are tacking on charges of terroristic acts/threats on every case they can. Think for a moment of what this means, it means that citizens who are charged with a terroristic crime could be labeled as a enemy combatant and be denied their civil rights. Far fetched? Maybe but its possible and that is what's scary.
2. Illegal immigrants (not to be confused with those here legally) have no rights. Make them pay their time in our prisons, then ship them backAgain your thinking in singular. There is a multitude of issues that this raises. If illegal aliens have no rights afforded by the Constitution then the government has every right to take every bit of their personal property, can stop them from holding meetings, can limit speech, etc. the list goes on and on.

---

I can't say that I'm surprised at your response. You have responded without really considering the issues at hand and their consequences. In all honesty it simply sounds as the simple-minded propaganda laden response that is common to any political party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlcooke3

I can't say that I'm surprised at your response. You have responded without really considering the issues at hand and their consequences. In all honesty it simply sounds as the simple-minded propaganda laden response that is common to any political party.

---

Actually, it is thought out. Our constitution does not apply to those in foreign countries. For instance, it does not apply in the UK, China, Iraq, Israel, and the list goes on. For our constitution to apply to other countries and other people then they would have to live by our laws. Certainly, when they visit our country they must abide by our laws. Key word is visit. When you attack or otherwise gain illegal entry then you do not fall under our laws.

Quote:

---

If we are at war with terrorism as a whole then does it not stand to reason that if a citizen of this country commits a terrorist act shouldn't he/she be tried as a enemy combatant.

---

Yes, we are at war with terrorism, all terrorism. With this statement though, I think you're blurring the line just a bit. There is a difference between terrorism to topple a nation, and terrorism to make a point.
There are laws and precedent in place for this, already.
If an individual is tied to a foreign enemy, they can and should be tried as an enemy combatant, even if they are a US citizen. If an individual takes up arms with a foreign group, such as "The-Base", or the Taliban, or Iran, or any enemy of the United States, that person should forfeit their citizenship, and be treated as an enemy combatant.

Timothy McVeigh was not charged as an enemy combatant, and yet he committed an act of terror. He was still caught, tried, convicted and dealt with satisfactorily. Had he been tied to some type of foreign entity, that charge should have been changed.
The definition of terrorism has been around for a long time.
If we take a hard look at the people detained at Guantanamo Bay, where are all these people from? Where is their funding and training coming from?

I think there has to be a defining line in defining an enemy combatant. I have always believed that if you take up arms against the United States (here we go again with the Civil War debate), if you join forces with an enemy of our nation, from my perspective you lose your citizenship and should be treated as such.

Bombing an abortion clinic is an act of terror, domestic terror. It is however different from plotting to destroy the United States. Bombing an abortion clinic is not about "defeating the infidel", or destroying our economy, etc... It is a criminal act, whereas the other is an act of war.

This country is based on differing opinions and ideas, and all of us being able to argue them. However, we are not entitled to join the Taliban (or any other enemy of the US) if we disagree, and retain our citizenship. It's a very fine line, but it is one that needs to be there.
This country offers more to its people than any other in the world, and if someone is going to try to destroy it, they are an enemy, and should be dealt with as such.

This is also why the government has such a difficult job in defending us against terrorism, particularly from the mid-east. Maybe I'm just dumb and naive, but I believe with proper oversight, all of our constitutional rights can be maintained, and all our freedoms kept intact, and we remain safe.
I guess that's what I see happening now, and with oversight it could happen in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

Actually, it is thought out. Our constitution does not apply to those in foreign countries. For instance, it does not apply in the UK, China, Iraq, Israel, and the list goes on. For our constitution to apply to other countries and other people then they would have to live by our laws. Certainly, when they visit our country they must abide by our laws. Key word is visit. When you attack or otherwise gain illegal entry then you do not fall under our laws.

---

You've have only considered one dimension you are either ignoring or ignorant of the possible consquences to U.S. citizens. I'm well aware of what constitutes a foreign country, uh that would be like Canada right? And just so that you know living by our laws does not mean that our Constitution would apply. You not only be an American citizen you must be an American citizen on American soil.

I'll try this again. For your consideration. An American citizen is charged with carrying out a terroistic act. Should he be prosecuted in a civilian court of law with all the protections that the Constitution allows or should he be charged as an enemy combatant go through military courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasper45

Yes, we are at war with terrorism, all terrorism. With this statement though, I think you're blurring the line just a bit. There is a difference between terrorism to topple a nation, and terrorism to make a point.
I'm not sure if there is a difference. Terrorism is terrorism. According to the American Heritage Dictionary terrorism is "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
There are laws and precedent in place for this, already.
If an individual is tied to a foreign enemy, they can and should be tried as an enemy combatant, even if they are a US citizen. If an individual takes up arms with a foreign group, such as "The-Base", or the Taliban, or Iran, or any enemy of the United States, that person should forfeit their citizenship, and be treated as an enemy combatant.
What about someone who is tied to subversive groups that are based here in America.
Timothy McVeigh was not charged as an enemy combatant, and yet he committed an act of terror. He was still caught, tried, convicted and dealt with satisfactorily. Had he been tied to some type of foreign entity, that charge should have been changed.Again your limiting acts of war to foreign powers.
The definition of terrorism has been around for a long time.
If we take a hard look at the people detained at Guantanamo Bay, where are all these people from? Where is their funding and training coming from?

I think there has to be a defining line in defining an enemy combatant. I have always believed that if you take up arms against the United States (here we go again with the Civil War debate), if you join forces with an enemy of our nation, from my perspective you lose your citizenship and should be treated as such.

Bombing an abortion clinic is an act of terror, domestic terror. It is however different from plotting to destroy the United States. Bombing an abortion clinic is not about "defeating the infidel", or destroying our economy, etc... It is a criminal act, whereas the other is an act of war.
I would submit that bombing an abortion clinic in and of itsself is a criminal act. I would also submit that bombing an abortion clinic in order to further ones political ideas or to force the U.S. government to change it policy on abortion could indeed be considered an act of war. An act war could be construed as any act that attempts to influence political policy through violence or threats of violence by a political group.
This country is based on differing opinions and ideas, and all of us being able to argue them. However, we are not entitled to join the Taliban (or any other enemy of the US) if we disagree, and retain our citizenship. It's a very fine line, but it is one that needs to be there.
This country offers more to its people than any other in the world, and if someone is going to try to destroy it, they are an enemy, and should be dealt with as such.

This is also why the government has such a difficult job in defending us against terrorism, particularly from the mid-east. Maybe I'm just dumb and naive, but I believe with proper oversight, all of our constitutional rights can be maintained, and all our freedoms kept intact, and we remain safe.
I guess that's what I see happening now, and with oversight it could happen in the future.

---

I completely agree with you the biggest problem I see is the attempt by some to convey our constitutional rights to those that most assuredly do not deserve them whether they be foreign enemies or domestic. The enemy combatants currently being detained at Gitmo Bay or any other government facility should be tried under a military court. I also believe that those individuals that are citizens of the United States that attempt to change U.S. government policy by the use of force should be considered either a traitor and charged with treason or be classified as a combatant have his rights forfeited and dealt with as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlcooke3

You've have only considered one dimension you are either ignoring or ignorant of the possible consquences to U.S. citizens. I'm well aware of what constitutes a foreign country, uh that would be like Canada right? And just so that you know living by our laws does not mean that our Constitution would apply. You not only be an American citizen you must be an American citizen on American soil.

I'll try this again. For your consideration. An American citizen is charged with carrying out a terroistic act. Should he be prosecuted in a civilian court of law with all the protections that the Constitution allows or should he be charged as an enemy combatant go through military courts.

---

It's very simple. As a citizen you are protected by our constitution on our soil. Like you said, if one goes to Canada you are no longer protected, nor are you bound by our laws. Think about the draft dodgers. They were able to go to Canada to escape their obligation and could not be prosecuted until they came back.

You are either one of us (American) or one of them. As one of them, you live by a different, less liberal, set of laws. It's bad enough when one of our own commits a crime. But to have visitors come here and commit crime is even worse. If an American citizen commits a terrorist act on US soil then he is afforded the rights of the constitution. If said American commits said act on foreign soil he is at the mercy of the foreign land to do as they wish. When a non-US citizen commits an act of terrorism (aka act of aggression) towards the US, they are then at the mercy of the military as foreign combatants.

Our world has changed. No longer do nations declare war on one another. Now we have individual groups declaring war. The folks at Gitmo were captured in Iraq, not in America. As such, they are prisoners of war and are covered by the Geneva Convention.

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed by a majority democrat house will be the nail in the coffin for free speech and any kind of dissent in this country. all but 6 representatives (3 dems and 3 reps) voted for it. here's a couple articles about it: http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/0...ch-on-hr-1955/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul428.html

and S. 1858: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 makes it legal for the government to take a sample of your child's dna when he/she is born without your consent or knowledge. also passed by a democrat majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

Way too easy
Bureau of Economic Analysis - Regional Economic Accounts List by state per capita. NY is 3rd, CA is 6th. Delaware and CT top the list.

---

Try again. Your graph shows GSP per capita. That means per resident of that state. When the total GSP is shown,CA is first with NY second at about 60% of CA. CT is 23rd, and DE is 40th. Los Angeles County has twice as many residents than both CT and DE combined. That's the largest county in the state. There are 55 others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

And yes, business did try to screw people. But it is business who makes the money and brings the money in. Government and it's agencies are without a doubt a burden on the economy, you might say, government taxes the economy.

---

What do you mean DID try? When you say government agencies are a burden on the economy, does that include the DoD, CIA, FBI, CDC, or Interstate Highway System? DoD personnel and resources have been used more than once to protect American business interests abroad. Can you point anyone to any significant infrastructure development (roads, sewers, water projects, etc) by the private sector enabling the more efficient transporting of goods and services? Given there are big business interests who survive at the trough is all the example I need of the incestuous relationship between the two. The business community rants and raves about the business climate but has no problem seeking a tarif, tax exemption, subsidy, or especially a nice no-bid contract from the very entity they claim is detrimental. And BTW. This is a firefighter forum. Would you care to claim the taxes used to fund those agencies are a burden to society or that society doesn't benefit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

Great idea, just try to make it happen. Want proof, go watch people shop at WalMart. Heck watch them shop anywhere. Ever see someone go to several car dealers just to get the best deal. How many times have you seen someone go back and forth between two dealers to save a couple hundred dollars. Bottom line is, the American people don't really care about ethics and morals when they spend their money. All they want is what is cheapest. I used to work in retail and I pushed made in the USA goods. Many still want for the cheaper Chinese junk. Funny part, the Chinese junk got replaced on an annual basis. The good stuff lasted years.

---

I never said it was a practical idea. And your example is one of the many reasons why it will never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsin925

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed by a majority democrat house will be the nail in the coffin for free speech and any kind of dissent in this country. all but 6 representatives (3 dems and 3 reps) voted for it.

---

I'm sorry, i don't know what is so threatening about this... it merely creates a commission to study the problem. Here is the summary.

Some radicals will merely post the ominous sounding title to a law, point to it, and give us the old "a ha!" and then intimate to some nefarious black helicopter sounding conspiracy.

No smoking gun here though...

10/23/2007Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change) and homegrown terrorism (violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives).
Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; and (2) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal. Requires: (1) interim reports and a final report from the Commission to the President and Congress on its findings and recommendations; (2) the public availability of such reports; and (3) Commission termination 30 days after its final report.
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security officials, through training, education, and research, in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to: (1) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and (2) report to Congress on lessons learned from survey results.
Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Directs the: (1) Secretary to ensure that activities and operations are in compliance with DHS's commitment to racial neutrality; and (2) DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer to develop and implement an auditing system to ensure that compliance does not violate the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and to include audit results in its annual report to Congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsin925

S. 1858: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 makes it legal for the government to take a sample of your child's dna when he/she is born without your consent or knowledge. also passed by a democrat majority.

---

Once again, whoever is feeding you this information is wrong. READ THE LAW yourself and make sure you understand what you are reading. There is NO mention of any taking of DNA samples anywhere in the law.

Unbelieveable.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s110-1858

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by txgp17

Yes, Americans only started driving gas guzzling SUVs in the last 7 years, before Bush took office they weren't even invented yet.

---

Chevrolet Blazers (Tahoes) 1960's
Chevrolet Suburban was in some form or another since the Depression
Ford Bronco (Fullsize and II) 1960's
Ford Explorer (replaced the Bronco II) in the Early 90's...during Slick Willies reign
International Travel-all Prior to the 60's IIRC

Sorry, bro...the rest of your post was spot on. The Mantra of US Automakers has always been...if they want it, we will build it.

ChiefKN:
the articles were by rep. ron paul and quotes rep. dennis kucinich, did you read them? if congressmen think that the act is unconstitutional, i don't think that it is a conspiracy theory. a quote from rep. dennis kucinich, “If you understand what this bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Kucinich said. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.” rep. ron paul states "There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for "facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process" in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course." i didn't make up the title, congress did. the act defines:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologicallybased violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1955

the act differentiates between force and violence. force is defined by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as (1): strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power<the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her life> (2)capitalized —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale <a Force 10 hurricane> b: moral or mental strength c: capacity to persuade or convince <the force of the argument>. the civil rights movement was a force, women's sufferage movement was a force, the workers' rights movement was a force. as defined by this act those movements would be deemed dangerous. law is big on semantics.

S. 1858: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 is a way of warehousing dna. the Citizens' Council on Health Care states "The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research. Already, in Minnesota, the state health department reports that 42,210 children of the 780,000 whose DNA is housed in the Minnesota "DNA warehouse" have been subjected to genetic research without their parent's knowledge or consent." see http://www.cchconline.org/pr/pr040908.php the Citizens' Council on Health Care is a non-profit, independent free-market health care policy organization that supports patient and doctor freedom, medical innovation, and the right to a confidential patient-doctor relationship.

i don't offer up conspiracy theories, just the facts about what is going on. if that makes me a radical, then so be it. there's no need for black helicopters when the public is uneducated and misinformed.

You are definitely right on the Prudhoe Bay terminal but I do know that while Canada and Russia have both confirmed oil and gas strikes north of the circle. its still in the ground. Canada is still working on the Mackensie River Valley pipeline but its tied up with environmental and native land claims and still is a long way from carrying anything. If the NW Passage does open up, it'll be a big difference as they could tanker it out, but there will be a long gap between now and when the first million bbls of oil comes floating down. Plain and simple, we have to utilise a different technology for a lot of our energy needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

Had to dig for this one. It came out a few weeks ago
Oil in the Arctic — The New Northwest Passage? from the article

---

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer Continental Shelf. She won’t even allow it to come to a vote. With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote. Moreover, given the public mood, she might even lose. This cannot be permitted. Why? Because as she explained to Politico: ‘I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.’ A lovely sentiment... There are a dizzying number of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payment deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Pelosi and the Democrats stand athwart shouting: We don’t care. We come to save the planet! They seem blissfully unaware that the argument for their drill-there-not-here policy collapses on its own environmental terms.” —Charles Krauthammer

Chief
A couple of things I agree with you on, The US or even North America won't crumble, but we all better start taking our head out of the sand if we don't want to end up like some of the less enlightened Euro countries. We need to find energy solutions within our own borders, not necessarily more oil, because that is short term bandage at best. If a lot of the money that is being squandered on the stupid war in Iraq, the Canadian equal rights and immigration system, subsidies to big oil by both countries, and political correctness, we could put that money into finding more efficient energy sources. If we keep on like we are doing, we are going to be falling further and further behind in the world economy.
Yes at this point China does need us because we are such big consumers, but, as more money flows to China as well as India and other Asian countries, they will become their own consumers and won't need us so much. Also as our economies get weaker, we won't have to money to consume so much, which may well be a good thing.
Yes Regan did put the USSR under, but they are now coming on pretty damn strong under Putin and Medvedev. They have Siberia, which for all intents and purposes is virtually unexplored or unexploited and they are taking control of it again. Witness whats happening to BP and to Shell. They are still a world power and will continue to grow a lot faster than we are. North America needs to quit being the worlds policeman, the worlds dumping ground for refugees, the arbiter of political correctness. We need to be use the abilities that grew our countries into solving our problems, not the worlds. I use Canada and the US together here as we are going to be inextricably twined IMHO for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefKN

These candidates don't exist in the two party system and the American people don't want them if they did.

I think you are overly pessimistic, I don't think we will crumble. The country goes through cycles of growth and decline, but overwhelming growth over the long period.

China is a concern, but China needs us more. We are the consumers of the world, and China is the producer of those goods.

Idealogy will change as more money goes to china and more information, which they will struggle to control. The internet may do to China what Reagan did to the USSR.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefKN

I'm sorry, i don't know what is so threatening about this... it merely creates a commission to study the problem. Here is the summary.

Some radicals will merely post the ominous sounding title to a law, point to it, and give us the old "a ha!" and then intimate to some nefarious black helicopter sounding conspiracy.

No smoking gun here though...

10/23/2007Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change) and homegrown terrorism (violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives).
Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; and (2) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal. Requires: (1) interim reports and a final report from the Commission to the President and Congress on its findings and recommendations; (2) the public availability of such reports; and (3) Commission termination 30 days after its final report.
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security officials, through training, education, and research, in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to: (1) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and (2) report to Congress on lessons learned from survey results.
Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Directs the: (1) Secretary to ensure that activities and operations are in compliance with DHS's commitment to racial neutrality; and (2) DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer to develop and implement an auditing system to ensure that compliance does not violate the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and to include audit results in its annual report to Congress.



Once again, whoever is feeding you this information is wrong. READ THE LAW yourself and make sure you understand what you are reading. There is NO mention of any taking of DNA samples anywhere in the law.

Unbelieveable.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s110-1858

---

You beat me too it. I did the same exact research and found the same exact thing coming to the same exact conclusion