Time Magazine : 1st, Hitler "Man of the Year", 2nd, One Document, Under Siege...

If you've seen the most recent article of Time Magazine it makes you think of all the nonsense with their declaring Adolph Hitler "Man of the Year" back in 1938, not to mention when former President George W. Bush said that the U.S. Constitution was just a piece of paper.

The 1938 article and cover can be seen here :

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cba20fe48154.jpg[/atsimg]

Quote from : Time Magazine : Adolph Hitler "Man of the Year"

Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Führerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic conference were Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, Premier Edouard Daladier of France, and Dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy. But by all odds the dominating figure at Munich was the German host, Adolf Hitler.

Quoting this article in no way supports Adolph Hitler, the 3rd Reich, or any other idiot : SKL

Now, what this thread is really about, is the recent Time Magazine article by Richard Stengel.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/06a0bf89cc39.jpg[/atsimg]

Quote from : Time Magazine : One Document, Under Siege

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause?

Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it's difficult to know what he would say. And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say.

Quoting this article in no way supports Adolph Hitler, the 3rd Reich, or any other idiot : SKL

I have to say when I learned about the idiocy of Time Magazine back in 1938 I never supported that rag again, and the only reason I know about this current issue is because it was on the 6 am news this morning. Reading through the comments section (and clicking "Like" to almost everyone), I have to say Richard Stengel has it wrong, dead wrong in fact, and one has to wonder if he is a Bush supporter, or an Obama fan.

Of which I am neither.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a413f6e7db6.jpg[/atsimg]

Bush started the current mess we're in today, and Obama is the clean-up man, with a mop and bucket.

Anyone supporting either the left-wing or right-wing is not seeing the whole picture.

That anyone can make a claim that the U.S. Constitution is not law is absurd.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d961e1813b7d.jpg[/atsimg]

That anyone can make a claim that the U.S. Constitution does not limit Government is absurd.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/556b54d98101.gif[/atsimg]

That anyone can make a claim that the U.S. Constitution is not necessary is absurd.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a7cce20180db.jpg[/atsimg]

One has but to see the very fact that Time Magazine and Richard Stengel are protected under the 1st Amendment, for publishing and writing this piece of biased garbage, called a magazine, to see just how wrong it is from word one.

The shredding of the Constitution will be a good thing my friend. When men and women rely on a piece of paper created by man to protect rights given them at birth by divine providence, they have already been enslaved by the enforcers of the paper. Freedom isn't something you put into print for all to see, it is self evident. Any man or woman who asks for their freedom from government, who looks to a piece of paper for what their freedoms are, or who willfully relinquishes their freedom for the sake of safety or prosperity wears the chains of slavery but are too blinded to see them.

Burn the Constitution, throw down your leaders, and walk this world free once more, an individual endowed by your creator needing the consent of no man to be free. It is far better to live or die free as intended than to submit your free will to the orchestrations of others.

The time for man to rule man is over. Watch closely the awesome destruction caused by the masters of this world as they struggle to maintain their power over the masses. What lies ahead in the next few months will be carnage on a scale never before seen. Take it as a lesson that no one is capable of such awesome power as ruling over others either by conquest or consent. Watch as the dog eat dog world we have created of iniquity and injustice comes unraveled. No Constitution can prevent it nor will it protect those who wish not to join the fray.

Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

William Shakespeare - Julius Caesar

"It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" - George Bush

Yes Sir Bush, it is a goddamn piece of paper. Freedom however, is not.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM
The shredding of the Constitution will be a good thing my friend. When men and women rely on a piece of paper created by man to protect rights given them at birth by divine providence, they have already been enslaved by the enforcers of the paper. Freedom isn't something you put into print for all to see, it is self evident. Any man or woman who asks for their freedom from government, who looks to a piece of paper for what their freedoms are, or who willfully relinquishes their freedom for the sake of safety or prosperity wears the chains of slavery but are too blinded to see them.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

We need laws in place, to protect society, to protect the innocent, and to protect our nation.

While I certainly see where you're coming from when in reference to "Divine Providence", I cannot concur with this logic, because far too many people disagree with that statement, in their ability to abuse power, to keep other people in oppression, and as well as religiously skewed and biased people who use religions itself as the very means to enslave people. Not only that but absurd events like the Crusades (which are still going to this day), the Reichstag Fire (where abuse of power was rampant), and the 9/11 Commission (where Government preyed upon our fears) only show us exactly why we need laws to protect us not only from criminals, but actual terrorists, and abuses by authority of those within Government who will use the very law to interpret it in favor of abusing us as free citizens.

I do not ask for freedom from my Government, I am my Government, and I demand freedom.

There are citizens out there who actually keep track of the laws as they change.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Burn the Constitution, throw down your leaders, and walk this world free once more, an individual endowed by your creator needing the consent of no man to be free. It is far better to live or die free as intended than to submit your free will to the orchestrations of others.

I have always walked freely, I am no more a slave, than I am anti-Government.

I am lawfully neutral.

I do not need Government, nor do I need any man to tell me I am free, but there are people who do.

This is why laws are written.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
The time for man to rule man is over. Watch closely the awesome destruction caused by the masters of this world as they struggle to maintain their power over the masses. What lies ahead in the next few months will be carnage on a scale never before seen. Take it as a lesson that no one is capable of such awesome power as ruling over others either by conquest or consent. Watch as the dog eat dog world we have created of iniquity and injustice comes unraveled. No Constitution can prevent it nor will it protect those who wish not to join the fray.

The problem herein lies with the fact that too many people do not know their freedoms.

The problem herein lies with the fact that too many people do not know their rights.

The problem herein lies with the fact that too many people do not know their laws.

Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

William Shakespeare - Julius Caesar

Yes, interesting quote, but this is not a revolution, there is no need for violence, nor illegality.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
"It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" - George Bush

Yes Sir Bush, it is a goddamn piece of paper. Freedom however, is not.

With Love,

Your Brother

That Bush made that ignorant statement shows exactly how ignorant he was to begin with.

Freedom is not free, correct, but it sure does cost us everything, if we do not protect it.

With "pieces of paper", like our U.S. Constitution, something that is a living document.

He excluded this part:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And"


He olny quotes this part:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

As I see it he provious paragraph makes it pretty clear that the powers he speaks of are limited to the ten square miles and Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State.

I stopped reading at this point. I'm sure he skewed many other points. What a rag. Hopefully people that read this will see the politics behind it. Although I'm not holding my breath. Most believe what they read to be true. Shame.

reply to post by VAPatriot


Thank you so much for quoting and posting that.

I was laughing pretty hard at the comments section on the online article.

I only read it so I could see just what he said, after hearing the news this morning, otherwise I would never have read it. Reading it only showed me what I knew, this man knows nothing of the law, nor does he know our country. Obviously, he wrote it just to get massive attention, and hate mail. Because that is exactly what he has done. One has to wonder if he is trolling or just that ignorant.

I have yet to have decided which it is in fact at this point.

reply to post by yeahright


Thank you for the post, yeahright, although I knew the first part.

Time Magazine and the "Man of the Year" is not an award of course.

But the very fact that they use that as a means to promote itself shows the narcissism of Time Magazine.

As for Bush saying or not saying that part I would rather ask him to his face.

So I can see the truth or the lie from the man.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
We need laws in place, to protect society, to protect the innocent, and to protect our nation.

Laws written by Man do not protect anything, they only enslave the masses. A murderer will murder despite such deed being unlawful, a thief will continue to steal, and the masses will live under a false sense of security forever unaware of the ONE Law that will truly save them, and wholly dependent on other men for their freedom.

Love one another as you love yourself.

Do this, and there is no other LAW.

Don't take my word for it my friend. Just watch. It will crumble.

With Love,

Your Brother

The people hold just as much blame in this mess as the politicos. Outdated or not, that piece of paper was a foundation and on it a nation was built.

As a people, we have allowed ourselves to be overly reliant on the "law". People once settled differences without having their cases pleaded by rats to the ultimate decision of some fat cat.

The decision making mechanism of the american brain has been rendered defunct through lack of use or intentional manipulation.

I believe in freedom, but I know it has always been an illusion. There has never been a question for me on "freedom in poverty" or "comfortably enslaved".

I don't wish to see the death of this document, but my wishing won't keep its demise at bay. We will see it declared null and void. The only choice we have is who writes the new one.

Do we allow our future to be decided by the same corporate agenda that hijacked our government? Do we allow our decendants to be tanked along with our country? Hope is not lost.

Sad to see all of this, but it is opportunity knocking.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Actually, I supported their "Man of the Year" pieces, because there is no denying the profound impact Hitler had on the world. Right or Wrong, he was certainly "influential." The fact that we are still discussing it 70 years later is proof that they got that one right.

As for this particular article, they didn't know about any of those things when the Bible was written, or the Quran, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Magna Carta. The Emancipation Proclamation was written before any knowledge of our current civil rights battles. A "Letter from Birmingham Jail" was written on plain old paper, it wasn't text messaged or emailed from a smart phone, and it wasn't communicated via Youtube.

Morals, and Universal truths, and Inalienable Rights, are timeless. Knowledge and technology do not change the meaning of right and wrong. The idea of Justice and Freedom from tyranny does not change. The Constitution was not written to define our rights for eternity, it was written to limit the rights of government for eternity, and it is just as important today as it was 200 years ago.

There is no need to rewrite basic tenets of morality and justice and limits on the power of our Federal Government. AND, if there were ever a need to do such a thing, the Consititution provides a method for amending itself. It is a simple matter really, the Congress just has to write the amendment in such a way that it makes sense, is plain language, and fairly brief, and then they have to overwhelmingly agree that the amendment is a good idea and vote accordingly. If they cannot do that, then the amendment is a bad idea, and the Constitution stays intact and unharmed.

It is brilliant really! To think the Congress has only been able to agree 26 times in almost 300 years, and 10 of those times came from the original framers, is evidence of how effectively it was written in the first place. I can't think of a single politician in this day and age with the intelligence, foresight, and integrity to even think about altering a single word in our constitution. The only exception might be Ron Paul, and ironically, he thinks it is perfect as is.

Man's greatest hopes and aspirations were written on pieces of paper (or parchment): Luthers 95 Theses, the Bible, the Koran, the Magna Carta, the US Constitution.

I do not take these lightly.

The US Constitution is the contract written for our collective governance with the following intent:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If the Constitution is so trivial then why do all public officials and military swear the oath To defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.?

A little history on Henry Luce, the founder of Time Magazine is in order here
Source - en.wikipedia.org...

In December 1921, Luce rejoined Hadden to work at The Baltimore News. Nightly discussions of the concept of a news magazine led the two, both age 23, to quit their jobs in 1922. Later that same year the two formed Time Inc. It is said that the two originally thought of TIME Magazine during their time in the "tomb" of Skull and Bones

So, Time Magazine was dreamt up during "time in the "tomb" of Skull and Bones"?

Luce, born in China to missionary parents, demonstrated a missionary zeal to make the nation worthy of dominating the world in what he called the "American Century."

American Century? Where have we heard this recently? Like "New American Century"? (PNAC)

Maybe he made Hitler as Man of the Year just for yucks -

Holding anti-communist sentiments, used Time to support right-wing dictatorships in the name of fighting communism.

Fascism is ok just so long as it's goal is Fighting Communism.

And who were the stockholders in Time Magazine beside Luce himself?

J.P. Morgan retained a certain control through two directorates and a share of stocks, both over Time and Fortune. Other shareholders were Brown Brothers W. A. Harriman & Co., and The New York Trust Company (Standard Oil).

J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers and W. Averell Harriman ( yes, the family Prescott Bush married into)

I can see why they thought Hitler should be Man of the Year! They wanted the same thing in America!

The US Constitution is NOT a "living document", subject to reinterpretation whenever it is politically convenient yet the author says:.

The framers weren't afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.

Because the Constitutional Convention was a difficult process born of argument is no reason to argue it's content or intent today. It is quite clear in it's language.

How can the same people who hold a 2,000 year old bible dear discount a document a mere 234 years old? Should they rewrite the bible to fit in with todays' world of the internet and Lady Gaga?

Here is the line that disgusts me most:

A crisis is when the Constitution breaks down. We're not in danger of that.

???!!!????
Oh, there's no danger of the Constitution breaking down, it''s still there.
Too bad both of the last administrations have completely ignored it.

This nation is in it's current pre-cataclysmic condition precisely because we have not followed the Constitution.
We gave away the power to create money to private interests.
We have participated in Wars without declaration.
These 2 things above all else are why we are in eternal debt bondage to international banking interests.
Which is exactly what Luce, the Rockerellers, JP Morgan and the Bush's have wanted all along.

Why? Because you cannot create a New World Order without destroying Nations ( and their Constitutions) in the process.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
We need laws in place, to protect society, to protect the innocent, and to protect our nation.

Laws written by Man do not protect anything, they only enslave the masses. A murderer will murder despite such deed being unlawful, a thief will continue to steal, and the masses will live under a false sense of security forever unaware of the ONE Law that will truly save them, and wholly dependent on other men for their freedom.

While I respect your right to express that opinion, I do not concur with it, nor do I support "one" law.

Yes, a murderer will still murder, in spite of the law, a thief will still steal, in spite the law.

To say they would not would be to assert absurdity.

However, without those laws in place, that murderer cannot be punished, nor can the thief.

As both should be punished.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Love one another as you love yourself.

Too bad that only works in Utopia.

Which is a fairytale in and of itself.

I do not seek Utopia for it is but a mere illusion and cannot be attained.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Do this, and there is no other LAW.

Too many people who are victim's family members of murdered people would disagree.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Don't take my word for it my friend. Just watch. It will crumble.

I take no ones word unless they have honor and hold themselves to honor.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
With Love,

Your Brother

With respect, I am not your brother, so please stop calling me that.

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
The people hold just as much blame in this mess as the politicos. Outdated or not, that piece of paper was a foundation and on it a nation was built.

I do agree that citizens are to blame just as much as the politicians.

For not knowing their rights, not knowing their laws, not knowing their Government.

I do not agree that the Constitution is outdated though.

Quite simply because of your same assertion of it being a foundation.

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
As a people, we have allowed ourselves to be overly reliant on the "law". People once settled differences without having their cases pleaded by rats to the ultimate decision of some fat cat.

I disagree.

We have become overly reliant on others to write the law, defend the law, and define the law.

This is the only reason the those corrupt within Government get away with what they do.

Our reliance upon others to do what is our responsibility.

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
The decision making mechanism of the american brain has been rendered defunct through lack of use or intentional manipulation.

It is a little of both but it is also apathy and ignorance.

People are far too self-centered to comprehend their rights, laws, and nation.

Instead they focus on idiocy like Snookie, American Idol, and trailer-trash TV.

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
I believe in freedom, but I know it has always been an illusion. There has never been a question for me on "freedom in poverty" or "comfortably enslaved".

It is not an illusion to those who know their rights and freedoms.

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
I don't wish to see the death of this document, but my wishing won't keep its demise at bay. We will see it declared null and void. The only choice we have is who writes the new one.

I disagree with this in that it will not be declared null and void unless criminals make it so.

Or negligent citizens allow it to be.

It will not die no matter who tries to murder it.

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
Do we allow our future to be decided by the same corporate agenda that hijacked our government? Do we allow our decendants to be tanked along with our country? Hope is not lost.

Hope is never lost until you give up.

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
Sad to see all of this, but it is opportunity knocking.

Opportunity for what exactly?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

As stated before, the Constitution is a law for the government, not for the people. The Constitution is a document drawn up by people to limit the powers of a representative government. It is actually our law that we ask the government to abide by, and if they cannot abide by that law, we have given ourselves not only the power, but also the responsibility to replace them! Therefore, the concept of "following man's law" doesn't relate to the Constitution.

Because of the preceding paragraph, I believe the next paragraph is entirely off-topic and irrelavent, but since it was brought up, and responded to, here is my take......

IAMIAM's utopian concept of "one love" is impossible. It is a great concept, except for the fact that we have competing interests for limited resources. We have mental illnesses. Even if there was no such thing as a bad or evil person, there would still be competition. Loving another as we love ourself doesn't even work, because not everyone loves themselves. In my opinion that is actually the hardest part. Hypothetically, I could believe there is no such thing as "evil" and that everyone is acting with the best intentions and according to their own morals and laws, and we could still have murder, rape, and crime, because we are all still competing for limited resources of food, breeding rights, shelter, etc. Even if we put our "survival of species" instinct ahead of all personal interests, we still have a difference of opinion on who deserves what. I believe my genetics are the best to be bred, and I will fight for the right to do so, I believe my children deserve that last fruit or vegetable or that best cave, and I will fight to provide for them, and I will do so in the name of protecting our "species" with my genetics and offspring, and I won't see it as selfish.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Actually, I supported their "Man of the Year" pieces, because there is no denying the profound impact Hitler had on the world. Right or Wrong, he was certainly "influential." The fact that we are still discussing it 70 years later is proof that they got that one right.

I do not call mass murder or genocide "influential" I call it a crime against humanity.

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

I am saddened by your writing that as it shows a lack of the depth I know you have within you.

Guess becoming a Moderator has softened your ability to dive deeper into the topic.

I am teasing, yet serious, influence via genocide is nothing more than excusing and overlooking it.

Whether we're still discussing it or not is beside the point and that it ever happened is an atrocity.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
As for this particular article, they didn't know about any of those things when the Bible was written, or the Quran, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Magna Carta. The Emancipation Proclamation was written before any knowledge of our current civil rights battles. A "Letter from Birmingham Jail" was written on plain old paper, it wasn't text messaged or emailed from a smart phone, and it wasn't communicated via Youtube.

I can agree, concurring with your commentary here, none of our modern concepts were envisioned.

Neither was what John saw during his time upon the Isle of Patmos.

Yet he tried to write a warning to us.

As I said prior to this post the U.S. Constitution was written as a foundation.

Everything after it needs constant interpretation and sometimes re-writing for societies acceptance.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Morals, and Universal truths, and Inalienable Rights, are timeless. Knowledge and technology do not change the meaning of right and wrong. The idea of Justice and Freedom from tyranny does not change. The Constitution was not written to define our rights for eternity, it was written to limit the rights of government for eternity, and it is just as important today as it was 200 years ago.

Yes, they are timeless, however they are not free, nor are they undefended.

I concur technology does not change the meaning of right and wrong.

But the differences of opinions, meanings, and elements are interpreted incorrectly sometimes.

And I agree wholeheartedly that the Constitution was written to limit the rights of Government.

For eternity.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
There is no need to rewrite basic tenets of morality and justice and limits on the power of our Federal Government. AND, if there were ever a need to do such a thing, the Consititution provides a method for amending itself. It is a simple matter really, the Congress just has to write the amendment in such a way that it makes sense, is plain language, and fairly brief, and then they have to overwhelmingly agree that the amendment is a good idea and vote accordingly. If they cannot do that, then the amendment is a bad idea, and the Constitution stays intact and unharmed.

There is not necessarily a need to re-write it.

There is however a need to begin fully enforcing it for the people.

Not for the Government.

As for writing it in plain language, Congress will never do that, they prefer confounding people.

Through legalese, innocuous meaning, and double-speak.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
It is brilliant really! To think the Congress has only been able to agree 26 times in almost 300 years, and 10 of those times came from the original framers, is evidence of how effectively it was written in the first place. I can't think of a single politician in this day and age with the intelligence, foresight, and integrity to even think about altering a single word in our constitution. The only exception might be Ron Paul, and ironically, he thinks it is perfect as is.

Actually, I see that as sad, only 26 times in 300 years.

That shows an ignorance among those men in the modern time.

It means they are not only out of touch with society they are out of touch with our desires.

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
As for Bush saying or not saying that part I would rather ask him to his face.

So I can see the truth or the lie from the man.

Well let me know how that turns out. It sounds like based upon that, you're not sure whether or not he said it. Based upon your post it sounded like you believed it was a foregone conclusion.

Not true.

I would rather confirm my suspicions and I hold to them.

Until proven wrong.

Originally posted by yeahright
In the meantime, the evidence is there for anyone choosing to find it. Actually the entire story originated with one guy who claims he heard it from unnamed sources. It appeared in a DC news blog, and the original story has since been taken off that site due to the unsubstantiated nature of it. I can dig for it at some point. "Blue" something, as I recall. Guy's name might have been Thompson. It's been awhile.

Please do when you get the time.

Just because it is unsubstantiated does not make it incorrect.

Nor does it make it right.

Originally posted by yeahright
Of course, the media circles any President like vultures, and I think any rational person would agree that at the time, they were specifically interested in any tidbit that could be used to bash Bush. And I think that's exactly what happened. A lot of people picked up on the story, it sounded like something they wanted to believe, and it went viral. Since it's still being quoted, I think it worked pretty well.

I do concur with you about the media as vultures.

I do concur with you about their desire to bash Bush or any President.

I do concur the media is nothing but a whore flaunting her wares.

I have never like Bush nor Obama nor any politician I've seen, heard, or met though.

Because I see, hear, and know their lies when I comprehend them.

It used to be something I hated but now I love it as it is an built-in lie-detector.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Thank you for that insightful and in depth look at some relevant history.

Keep that up as it shows exactly where the birth of the garbage they call media came from.

That it is linked to Skull and Bones shows it is linked to evil men.

As well anything J.P. Morgan put his hands in was corrupt as Hell.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

As stated before, the Constitution is a law for the government, not for the people. The Constitution is a document drawn up by people to limit the powers of a representative government. It is actually our law that we ask the government to abide by, and if they cannot abide by that law, we have given ourselves not only the power, but also the responsibility to replace them! Therefore, the concept of "following man's law" doesn't relate to the Constitution.

I disagree and we're going to have to agree to disagree.

The U.S. Constitution was not written for Government it was written for the people.

It was written from the perspective of an abused populace to defend the next generations from abuse.

By Government itself.

Possibly we're squabbling over semantics or wording or even definitions.

It sure sounds like we're stating similar thoughts and or ideals.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Because of the preceding paragraph, I believe the next paragraph is entirely off-topic and irrelavent, but since it was brought up, and responded to, here is my take......

IAMIAM's utopian concept of "one love" is impossible. It is a great concept, except for the fact that we have competing interests for limited resources. We have mental illnesses. Even if there was no such thing as a bad or evil person, there would still be competition. Loving another as we love ourself doesn't even work, because not everyone loves themselves. In my opinion that is actually the hardest part. Hypothetically, I could believe there is no such thing as "evil" and that everyone is acting with the best intentions and according to their own morals and laws, and we could still have murder, rape, and crime, because we are all still competing for limited resources of food, breeding rights, shelter, etc. Even if we put our "survival of species" instinct ahead of all personal interests, we still have a difference of opinion on who deserves what. I believe my genetics are the best to be bred, and I will fight for the right to do so, I believe my children deserve that last fruit or vegetable or that best cave, and I will fight to provide for them, and I will do so in the name of protecting our "species" with my genetics and offspring, and I won't see it as selfish.

edit on 30-6-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

I concur with your comments above to IAMIAM.

Utopia is impossible whether by definition, concept, or reality.

No man can attain it, no God or god can build it, and no man will live within it in our time.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Actually, I see that as sad, only 26 times in 300 years.

That shows an ignorance among those men in the modern time.

It means they are not only out of touch with society they are out of touch with our desires.

Why? Are you proposing changes to the Constitution?

The reason I think it is brilliant, is that it is still so effective, with so little change. It has been extremely successful, and we have only gotten ourselves into trouble as a country in those instances where we have ignored the Constitution, not where we have followed it.

What additional amendments can you propose that would be as elegant and timeless as the original document + Bill of Rights?