Things are looking bad; almost nobody supports Ron Paul and knows of Bilderberg Group.

I would disagree that the bulk or majority of laws are against the letter of the law. In fact, they are all almost exactly in line with the letter of the law. Despite what people like to think, we have LOTS of congress members and judges looking for every and any opportunity to make a political statement over something anyone in the opposite party does (even judges have parties, although they are supposedly nonpartisan). They salivate at the opportunity to play a game of "gotcha" with the opposite political party. They can't, and usually don't because the laws passed, even hated ones like the patriot act - are quite in line with the letter of the law.

I do think however that such laws are clearly against the spirit of the law. But - unfortunately, perhaps - in the US following the letter of the law is "enough" to get it passed.

its a shame really when you think about it, that is if course that so many americans died to help free europe from some form of ism or another in two world wars and yet the same thing is happening to yer country now and no one realises it! Dont worry lads when the civil war starts ill be over with my pelet gun and slinshot, that way we can take america one city at a time!LOL

reply to post by Fada126


I fear the day that America actually has anything remotely like any -ism actually taking over government. For all the sensationalism and over-reaction on this board, the American people can't even begin to understand what those words mean. It says much about the dignity and strength of our country that what is considered "normal" and "part of what government does" in other countries - like warrant-less wiretapping - results in an absolute (if over-dramatic) uproar over here that has people screaming that totalitarianism/insert your ism is at hand and the constitution as we know it is dead. If we had half of the problems the overly dramatic like to claim you wouldn't hear an uproar at all, you'd be...er...hushed up.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by mmmeat

 

Cite your source, and list how these documents were 'raped' or 'plundered.'

*sigh* .. if it is against you opinion one must cite sources, yes? In the opinion of MANY, though not all, various laws passed would be against the constitution.

Not at all.

However, if as idiotic a statement as 'the Constitution being raped and/or plundered' is made, it's not at all unreasonable to ask where this information came from.

Especially as I've not hear that any document written by our forefathers had been sexually violated or stolen.

In my opinion almost every thing the Federal government passes is against the constitution, as most are aimed at individuals, corporations, or other areas, like education, that are supposed to be solely in the hands of the State.

I don't disagree, necessarily. However, the Federal government has full right and authority to pass Federal law - which affects ALL states and territories of the U.S.A. - and that includes individuals, corporations and other areas.

As a pilot, I would prefer that the Federal government regulate how things are supposed to happen in U.S. airspace, and how you're supposed to enter and exit it. Having California do things different than Nevada, who does it differently than Oregon and so on would make for some pretty interesting midair collisions. A blanket agency - such as the FAA - is a good thing.

As a Californian, I'd just as soon have the Federal government regulate CAFE standards, instead of California having the idiotic CARB nazis demand that automobile manufacturers make separate cars or not import cars into California. For my off-roading, I'd love to have a CRD Jeep Wrangler Rubicon. But we're not allowed to have diesels (effectively) in California. My Hummer had to have separate sticker from AMG to say that it's diesel was compilant with CA clean air standards. Why? Because California has CARB. And they suck. I know this because I've helped write laws that have involved them.

As an American, I'd really prefer that the Federal government secure our borders - and do what they say they're going to do - rather than leave things up to the states. States should regulate interstate traffic, but the Federal government should secure international borders.

So, in some cases, I'd rather have the Federal government pass laws. In others, then the state should regulate it.

I would also consider acts, such as the Patriot Act I and II to be a blunt "plundering" of individual, and state rights.

Meh.

The Patriot Act hasn't done anything other than remove liberal roadblocks to national security. As a general rule, American citizens haven't been affected by the Patriot Act, other than we don't have airplanes crashing into buildings, people detonating themselves in Starbucks, and things in the U.S. continue to be secure.

I don't have any problems with that at all.

Get over your self, and your arrogant attitude, then come back for a discussion.

Being right isn't arrogance. It's just being better, smarter and far more witty than the rest.

As for 'coming back for discussion' ... sure, no problem; if there's a post that's got some IQ points behind it, I'm all for discussion.

If, on the other hand arrogant, self-serving pomposity that isn't backed up by knowledge or wisdom is going to be the fruit of the day ... then I'm damned well going to be demanding proof and debunking stupidity.

Note that I didn't ask for proof, or for you to cite source, chapter or verse. I'm just sayin' that you might be jumping in and taking a side in a fight you've got no dog in.

Your pal,
Meat.

reply to post by mmmeat

However, if as idiotic a statement as 'the Constitution being raped and/or plundered' is made, it's not at all unreasonable to ask where this information came from.

And I gave you specific documents or laws which I consider to be such. Of course, it would take an understanding that the Constitution is not a literal document, but an interpreted document that is, depending upon your own pre-established set of beliefs, going to represent one thing and not the other.

For instance, the Constitution does not give the Federal Governmnet the right to dictate schools, let alone a national standardization of schools such as the "no child left behind act', this would be considered a pillaging of State rights, and thus individual rights as their right to have a school system not dictated at a national level has been compromised.

Especially as I've not hear that any document written by our forefathers had been sexually violated or stolen.

Your incapacity to comprehend figurative speech is your own issue, friend, not my own.

I don't disagree, necessarily. However, the Federal government has full right and authority to pass Federal law - which affects ALL states and territories of the U.S.A. - and that includes individuals, corporations and other areas.

It has the right to pass a Federal Law, but is not exempt as it perceives its self to be, from being constrained by the Constitution and more importantly, the states (who make the Union which the Fed is needed) .. Just because they "can" and sometimes "do" pass laws does not make them "legal" or at the very, very least, moral as far as abiding the constitution or strict constitutionalism..

As a pilot, I would prefer that the Federal government regulate how things are supposed to happen in U.S. airspace

An example of something that is "inter" and not "intra" state.. for example, the Fed also regulates High Ways, and if your from Ohio you know the history of our High Way bills.. The Federal government withheld all high way funding until we changed our drinking age from 19 to 21. Which would be an example of duties not regulated by the Federal Government.

The Federal Government is supposed to deal with things that are exchanged between states, air traffic being one of course, as is all interstate commerce, military, border disputes, foreign policy, interstate crimes, state protection, currency, federal taxation (not income), and insuring all states abide by the constitution.

The Federal Government was not supposed to replace the state governments.

As an American, I'd really prefer that the Federal government secure our borders - and do what they say they're going to do - rather than leave things up to the states. States should regulate interstate traffic, but the Federal government should secure international borders.

So would I.. Perhaps if they stopped worrying about which ear mark will be placed in which bill, something could get done. Corruption however has a nasty habit of prohibiting real progress and instead, digress.

The Patriot Act hasn't done anything other than remove liberal roadblocks to national security. As a general rule, American citizens haven't been affected by the Patriot Act, other than we don't have airplanes crashing into buildings, people detonating themselves in Starbucks, and things in the U.S. continue to be secure.

If someone wanted to, they would have no problem attacking the United States, the Patriot Act has done little to stop that, as the biggest agencies still have severe problems communicating.

Being right isn't arrogance.

Being right is arrogance, when in a political atmosphere, there is no right and wrong as rights are almost always precieved by both sides. We both feel we are right, so who is right? Only an arrogant man would put his nose in air and declare all other ideologies incorrect in the light of his own thinking, that of which you have done, sir.

By the way, welcome to ATS, "brother".

Originally posted by Rockpuck

However, if as idiotic a statement as 'the Constitution being raped and/or plundered' is made, it's not at all unreasonable to ask where this information came from.

And I gave you specific documents or laws which I consider to be such. Of course, it would take an understanding that the Constitution is not a literal document, but an interpreted document that is, depending upon your own pre-established set of beliefs, going to represent one thing and not the other.

For instance, the Constitution does not give the Federal Governmnet the right to dictate schools, let alone a national standardization of schools such as the "no child left behind act', this would be considered a pillaging of State rights, and thus individual rights as their right to have a school system not dictated at a national level has been compromised.

Your argument is largely irrelevant, as you weren't the one who originally said the idiotic statement I referenced and originally responded to. That was Shar_Chi.

That you want to jump in and play victim ... well, if that's your thing, go for it.

Especially as I've not hear that any document written by our forefathers had been sexually violated or stolen.

Your incapacity to comprehend figurative speech is your own issue, friend, not my own.

Your incapacity to comprehend sarcastic banter and witty reparte is your own issue, friend, and not my own.

Being right isn't arrogance.

Being right is arrogance,

Never.

Jumping into an argument that wasn't yours to begin with, thinking that it was, and believing that I was responding to something you had written is, arrogance, however.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

Your pal,
Meat.

reply to post by mmmeat

Your argument is largely irrelevant, as you weren't the one who originally said the idiotic statement I referenced and originally responded to. That was Shar_Chi.

That you want to jump in and play victim ... well, if that's your thing, go for it.

It is entirely relevant, because the same is implied to us all. Everyone's political beliefs are decided on how they will interpret the fundamentals behind the system. In this case the constitution. Is it being "plundered" .. depends on your own ideologies, just as a Democrat would say the election in 04 was stolen, and Republicans would say it wasn't.

I don't see why you cannot have the discussion with me, instead of declaring "well I wasn't talking to you anyways" ..

Your incapacity to comprehend sarcastic banter and witty reparte is your own issue, friend, and not my own.

If you think of your self as "witty" you have deceived your self....

Jumping into an argument that wasn't yours to begin with, thinking that it was, and believing that I was responding to something you had written is, arrogance, however.

Hilarious, truly. Welcome to the internet my friend, let it be known to you that you do not have a presumed right to carry on private conversations on a public message board. Anything you say in any context to any individual will be scrutinized, as is the case. If you didn't want to discuss with me, you could have just said so instead of, at the end, being unreasonably defensive with a put off attitude.

Will be a ... pleasure seeing you around friend.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
It is entirely relevant

No, it's not. I can understand your confusion, though, since it appears that you believe that the world revolves around you. It doesn't.

I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish here, but it's pretty clear that you have no relevant or legitimate argument ... you just want to make odd little threats directed at me.

Rest assured that I have no idea who you are, nor do I care. That you choose to threaten me on an open forum seems pretty idiotic, though.

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by mmmeat
Your argument is largely irrelevant, as you weren't the one who originally said the idiotic statement I referenced and originally responded to. That was Shar_Chi.

You won't get any further response from me. Have a nice life.

reply to post by Shar_Chi


I have to agree with your judgment .. I don't Blist people often at all, but some people's ignorance impairs discussion. Have a wonderful stay at ATS "brother" ... back to the topic.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
but if you look at France, the UK.. other places where the socialist governments are failing

Yet the French and British don't see themselves "failing" at all. Again, they are prospering, while they consider our own system backwards. It is we who are currently in decline, not Europe (who have already surpassed us in most areas).

you can see the peoples anger. Health care underfunded and stressed out, increasing social stress with immigration, usurps over the economy.. I defently don't see the world going further left.

Most Europeans are very satisfied with their system, not angry at all. This also holds true of American expatriates. The same cannot be said of Americans at home.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Most Europeans are very satisfied with their system, not angry at all. This also holds true of American expatriates. The same cannot be said of Americans at home.

I disagree with that. Americans are content at home. Unlike Europe (where citizens of countries like Germany or Spain have voter turnouts in the mid- to high- 80%, or Britain's 75%, Japan's 71% or even Canada's 76% voter turnout) the U.S. traditionally only has around a 50% voter turnout. If Americans were dissatisfied with their system, they'd turn out in greater numbers to change it.

They don't.

Why? Because they're content. The government runs smoothly and transparently enough that they feel comfortable in this great country of ours.

Your pal,
Meat.

reply to post by thetruth777



He's just not interesting enough and doesn't do a lot to generate interest. IMO he doesn't seem to be sincere enough either, sorry.


If you're pro-choice vote for John Edwards and if you're pro-life vote for Huckabee. JMO's

IMO, Eisenhower and JFK were our two last hopes.

reply to post by mmmeat


I have to disagree. I don't think Americans are content at all: just apathetic. Big difference.

There are many Europeans that remember with horror being subjugated to Nazism, Fascism, and Stalinism. They exercise their right to vote because they understand the price of freedom.

Many Americans, on the other hand, take the whole thing for granted. We have not been ruled by a foreign despot for a couple of centuries, and many of us have forgotten.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I have to disagree. I don't think Americans are content at all: just apathetic. Big difference.

There are many Europeans that remember with horror being subjugated to Nazism, Fascism, and Stalinism. They exercise their right to vote because they understand the price of freedom.

Many Americans, on the other hand, take the whole thing for granted. We have not been ruled by a foreign despot for a couple of centuries, and many of us have forgotten.

I see your disagreement, and raise you one:

I don't believe that Americans are apathetic. As was shown by 9/11, Americans can all move in the same direction at once.

But, I still stand by my statement that Americans are - for the most part - content. The government runs smoothly and transparently enough that they feel comfortable in this great country of ours. If it didn't they'd make sure that it did.

Further, Americans will never know the the horror of subjugation, because we're a republic, and there are way too many safeguards against the government seizing control and we've got the best damned military in the world - just in case someone decided to invade (illegal immigration not included).

The youngsters tend to be the ones who don't vote, but are often the ones that politicians play to. And the older Americans get, the more conservative they become (I was lucky; I started off conservative, and I'm still conservative!), and the more often they vote.

People are content. They will always want more, but they feel safe and secure with what they've already got.

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by mmmeat

I see your disagreement, and raise you one:

I don't believe that Americans are apathetic. As was shown by 9/11, Americans can all move in the same direction at once.

I agree completely. Americans do have great potential, and can move as one body and as one community. In fact, I'm counting on this.

But, I still stand by my statement that Americans are - for the most part - content. The government runs smoothly and transparently enough that they feel comfortable in this great country of ours. If it didn't they'd make sure that it did.

This is where we disagree. If you ask the average guy on the street if he is content with our current government's policies, I don't think he will say "Hell yeah, I love 'em!"

Many surveys and statistics are available on this phenomenon, and time after time we see people completely disillusioned, who tend to think that their individualk vote simply will not matter, so they don't waste their time.

Further, Americans will never know the the horror of subjugation, because we're a republic, and there are way too many safeguards against the government seizing control and we've got the best damned military in the world - just in case someone decided to invade (illegal immigration not included).

I think you are basically correct inasmuch as the USA doesn't have to worry about being subjugated by a foreign power. Of course, what we have to worry about now is not invasion from a tyrannical foe, but comnplete annhilation due to the nuclear threat. The entire Soviet stockpile, which once sat safely in the USSR, is now in the hands of myriad countries, some of them with ties to questionable regimes. All of the experts say it is just a matter of time until a terrorist group gets their hands on one.

The youngsters tend to be the ones who don't vote, but are often the ones that politicians play to. And the older Americans get, the more conservative they become (I was lucky; I started off conservative, and I'm still conservative!), and the more often they vote.

"I never dared be radical when young, for fear it would make me conservative when old." - Robert Frost

Originally posted by Masonic Light
This is where we disagree. If you ask the average guy on the street if he is content with our current government's policies, I don't think he will say "Hell yeah, I love 'em!"

If this is where we disagree, then it may only be in reference to the definition of the term content. Being content doesn't necessarily mean you love whatever it is you're content with.

I'll even go so far as to say that IF 'the average guy on the street' is discontented, it's primarily due to to the media telling them they should be that way. The media tends to 'egg things on' in my opinion. Not for the good of the country, but so that they'll still have a job in the morning.

Many surveys and statistics are available on this phenomenon, and time after time we see people completely disillusioned, who tend to think that their individualk vote simply will not matter, so they don't waste their time.

Meh. I disagree. And I have an issue with surveys as well; they're only as good as the agenda the surveyor is pushing, they're never unbiased.

As far as people not thinking they can make the U.S. change ... well, again, I point to the media and the misinformation that's dished out by idiots like Matt Lauer (I long for the day when they do the annual "Where in the World is Matt Lauer" and the answer comes back "we don't know").

My favorite video snippet

The only people I see disillusioned (or dillusional, more accurately) are democrats. Maybe it's a function of their party straying from what it used to be, maybe it's the liberal nutbags that have taken over the party with their 'moveon' socialist agenda, or maybe they don't understand that the party they think they should be a part of is pushing to be the exact opposite of what they believe in.

In any case, most people are content, they're not disillusioned (unless they believe what they see on the evening news or CNN), and they're not apolitical, either. Everyone I know votes. Of course, most of them are conservatives...

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by mmmeat


The only people I see disillusioned (or dillusional, more accurately) are democrats.

If that is truly the case, why does Ron Paul have so much grassroot support? His is a gospel of disillusionment, and one certainly could not label him progressive, socialist, or liberal.

Originally posted by mmmeatThe Patriot Act hasn't done anything other than remove liberal roadblocks to national security. As a general rule, American citizens haven't been affected by the Patriot Act, other than we don't have airplanes crashing into buildings, people detonating themselves in Starbucks, and things in the U.S. continue to be secure.

9/11 was an inside job. Of course there haven't been any planes crashing into buildings (terrorist attacks, actual planes have hit buildings since 9/11), because the government hasn't issued there to be any.

When was the last time you heard of a suicide bomber blowing themselves up in a starbucks? When was the last terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11? The Patriot Act does not stop terrorists if they want to attack, nothing does.

The Patriot Act is a load of bull# used to limit the freedoms of the American people. It does not institute security.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by mmmeat


The only people I see disillusioned (or dillusional, more accurately) are democrats.

If that is truly the case, why does Ron Paul have so much grassroot support? His is a gospel of disillusionment, and one certainly could not label him progressive, socialist, or liberal.

Ron Paul really doesn't have that much support, when you get right down to it. And it's certainly not what I would call 'grassroot support.' Grassroots support tends to mean support driven by a constituency, and that's not what I see from the Paulys; the movement seems to be driven by Ron Paul and his election machine.

And I agree with tyou that Ron Paul is delusional. He reminds me of Marshall Applewhite from Heaven's Gate. He sounds fine as long as he's reading from a script ... but boy, when he strays off the reservation, he really loses it quick.

When he's reading from a speech, he seems to lean towards libertarian beliefs, but when he wanders off topic, he sounds alot more socialistic, isolationistic or even imperialistic in his views. While drawing the parallel may seem unfair, many of Ron Paul's beliefs seem to coincide with what an early Hitler preached to a post-WWI Germany.

Ron Paul is scary.

Your pal,
Meat.