Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

[TheSilencer1313]

Obviousl reading the documents can result in different opinions on what they mean or we wouldn't need a supreme court to interpret them for us and keep us consistent. It is naive to assume that your understanding of them is the only one or the only correct one.

I'd say the constitution and the bill of rights are pretty cut and dry by what they mean.
Unlike most bills that end up on the desks of our congressmen.
1000 page bills of complete drivel, designed so that we and our elected officials won't read them or even be able to understand them for that matter.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

You've read the Federalist papers?

I have studied the Federalist Papers yes.
Have I read all 85 articles in completion, not quite.

 

[One Brow]

I'd say the constitution and the bill of rights are pretty cut and dry by what they mean.
Unlike most bills that end up on the desks of our congressmen.
1000 page bills of complete drivel, designed so that we and our elected officials won't read them or even be able to understand them for that matter.

It works in just the opposite way. Short documents lead to ambiguities. To set precise definitions and considerations, you need hundreds of pages.

 

[franklin]

Sure, there argument, just not sensible or meaningful argument.

That's what the winking face was for.

 

[babe]

It works in just the opposite way. Short documents lead to ambiguities. To set precise definitions and considerations, you need hundreds of pages.

Looks like an upside down universe here. Obviously you don't want to understand the Bill of Rights.

Let's see "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Meant the Federal government couldn't take your guns.

The issue was the recent attempts by the British to take away people's guns to prevent a revolt. Jefferson even went so far as to say the price of liberty was a regular willingness of the people to take back the government and re-establish it's institutions.

While some of the Constitutional Congress folks did fear mob rule just as much as top-down management, it was hoped that a virtuous and free people could keep either extreme from being a persistent problem.

Now we have thousands of laws on the books, mostly written by fearmongering tyrants who fear their just deserts from the public they supposedly serve. . . . . all justtified of course by false-flag or "useful" terrorism our security agencies had the sense to refuse to prevent, when they had serious evidence and knowledge before the events.

Case in Point. 9/11:

In 1995 the Philippine government acquired computers with detailed plans for flying commercial airliners intp high-profile public buildings, acquired not by some slick intelligence operatives, but by firemen putting out an apartment fire where they found various items of bomb-making materials as well. Later on, dedicated professionals within our various agencies got other information that could have enable preventative action, but they were all determinedly ignored.

I just about puked to hear our leaders like bush and that airhead lady who was supposed to be managing our national security blather on air that "nobody had any idea this could happen."

This one clue should be sufficient to undermine any rational human being from wanting these Federal Government Blowhards managing our security.

We have Fed officials setting up supposed operations to sell guns to drug traffickers while throwing border patrol officers in jail for trying to stop drug runners who are working for our corrupt DEA honchos. We have thousands of regulations detailing how old ladies and babes in arms must be searched when getting on airplanes, and we have Mexican truckers who can drive a truckload of illegals across the border twice a day without being stopped.

The message we are being given in all this is a strut by plantation managers demonstrating daily that they can do whatever they want with impunity, and we'd better just fall in line and go with the program, or we will be just arrested on trumped up charges and declared "terrorist" in some sense, and sent offshore and maybe even just killed by order of the President or anyone else "in authority", for the securtiy of their own fat arses.

Power corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.

No person who believes in any human rights should be accepting this regime.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Looks like an upside down universe here. Obviously you don't want to understand the Bill of Rights.

Let's see "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Meant the Federal government couldn't take your guns.

The issue was the recent attempts by the British to take away people's guns to prevent a revolt. Jefferson even went so far as to say the price of liberty was a regular willingness of the people to take back the government and re-establish it's institutions.

While some of the Constitutional Congress folks did fear mob rule just as much as top-down management, it was hoped that a virtuous and free people could keep either extreme from being a persistent problem.

Now we have thousands of laws on the books, mostly written by fearmongering tyrants who fear their just deserts from the public they supposedly serve. . . . . all justtified of course by false-flag or "useful" terrorism our security agencies had the sense to refuse to prevent, when they had serious evidence and knowledge before the events.

Case in Point. 9/11:

In 1995 the Philippine government acquired computers with detailed plans for flying commercial airliners intp high-profile public buildings, acquired not by some slick intelligence operatives, but by firemen putting out an apartment fire where they found various items of bomb-making materials as well. Later on, dedicated professionals within our various agencies got other information that could have enable preventative action, but they were all determinedly ignored.

I just about puked to hear our leaders like bush and that airhead lady who was supposed to be managing our national security blather on air that "nobody had any idea this could happen."

This one clue should be sufficient to undermine any rational human being from wanting these Federal Government Blowhards managing our security.

There should be no argument about the Constitution, it can be understood by a 5 year old.
As for 9/11....
The Bush administration said they had no idea that someone could possibly crash planes into buildings.
When just months before the fact, the military was engaged in war games with the scenario of a plane being flown into the whitehouse.

 

[PearlWatson]

I will be voting for Mitt because he is the only person that can beat Obama.

What is your reasoning behind this statement?

 

[Stoked]

What is your reasoning behind this statement?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

One source amoung many. Perception.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

What about this article that shows Romney, Paul, and Obama at a dead heat?
https://mobile.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-romney-paul-tie-obama-20120109

 

[Stoked]

What about this article that shows Romney, Paul, and Obama at a dead heat?
https://mobile.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-romney-paul-tie-obama-20120109

Again it is perception, what is given to the public. What they see. They (general terms people) don't see that poll. They see the one of Romney ahead by a few, tied or behind by a few. So the perception is that only Romney has a chance. Brilliant.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Again it is perception, what is given to the public. What they see. They (general terms people) don't see that poll. They see the one of Romney ahead by a few, tied or behind by a few. So the perception is that only Romney has a chance. Brilliant.

Yeah you're probably right.
Apparently this country is ready for a turn around yet.
Maybe if more people lose their job, and the military starts policing the streets under NDAA laws people will wake up.

 

[Stoked]

Yeah you're probably right.
Apparently this country is ready for a turn around yet.
Maybe if more people lose their job, and the military starts policing the streets under NDAA laws people will wake up.

That started me thinking of a catostrophic scenario. That in turn brought to mind a book I had read. You should read it. Scared the hell out o fme.

One Second After by William R. Forstchen. The forward is by Newt Gingrich. Now it is a book with an actual plot and what not. Not a science book. However I see the scenario as completely plausible. Scares the hell out of me.

 

[babe]

That started me thinking of a catostrophic scenario. That in turn brought to mind a book I had read. You should read it. Scared the hell out o fme.

One Second After by William R. Forstchen. The forward is by Newt Gingrich. Now it is a book with an actual plot and what not. Not a science book. However I see the scenario as completely plausible. Scares the hell out of me.

Newt is the only mainstreamer/conservative I would respect enough to vote for, besides Ron Paul who's no mainstreamer at all, and who also doesn't fit a lot of peoples' ideas of "conservative" Conservative is generally not about "change" either good or bad. Newt is looking to me like someone whose experience and life course have created a unique national asset: A man who could be a statesman. Yeah, I know he got rattled by the intense battering he's been given in political ads. But in my opinion even his complaining about the lies and negativity was restrained, as good statesmen must do when being hammered.

I don't know when our plantation managers are going to know their limits. They've been crossing the public's boundaries of acceptance so much it's no longer just a few people who are feeling their government is going bad. And Obama/Reid/Pelosi just never quit crossing that line. Unless they have the ability to hack the election computers, they should know they can't keep getting elected that way..

 

[Stoked]

Newt is the only mainstreamer/conservative I would respect enough to vote for, besides Ron Paul who's no mainstreamer at all, and who also doesn't fit a lot of peoples' ideas of "conservative" Conservative is generally not about "change" either good or bad. Newt is looking to me like someone whose experience and life course have created a unique national asset: A man who could be a statesman. Yeah, I know he got rattled by the intense battering he's been given in political ads. But in my opinion even his complaining about the lies and negativity was restrained, as good statesmen must do when being hammered.

I don't know when our plantation managers are going to know their limits. They've been crossing the public's boundaries of acceptance so much it's no longer just a few people who are feeling their government is going bad. And Obama/Reid/Pelosi just never quit crossing that line. Unless they have the ability to hack the election computers, they should know they can't keep getting elected that way..

As mentioned before by soemone in this thread I hop Pual manages to get a prime time speakign spot at the GOP convention. I do not want him to go insane up there as that will hurt his cause. But I hope he delivers a brilliant speach that opens peoples eyes on a lot of domestic issues.

Also I heard a good interview by him the other day about our Carrier strik group in the arabian gulf. He responded by saying how would we like a chinese aircraft carrier strike group in the gulf of mexico? Why dont we back off a little. Just pull them back some.

That seems smart to me. Just back of a step or two and say hey can we talk?

 

[One Brow]

Looks like an upside down universe here. Obviously you don't want to understand the Bill of Rights.

Thousand-page bills don't normally face decades of jurisprudence to determine what they meant. The Bill of Rights did/does/will continue to do so.

Let's see "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Meant the Federal government couldn't take your guns.

You left out half the sentence. Did yo uthink that half was meaningless, a toss-in whose words were not carefully considered?

Also, do "arms" include handguns? Machine guns? Bazookas? Missles? Do you think Congress meant for homeowners to keep cannons in their backyards? Those are all arms. Without any sort of qualification or understadning of purpose, do you really think this meaning is clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Does this language protect people who are interested in reducing the security of a free state? Those who want to form unregulated militias? However, even while still not that clear, this is an improvement. The security of a free stateis hampered by the possession of missles by individuals, not helped.

No person who believes in any human rights should be accepting this regime.

Have there been regimes better at securing human rights? When and where?

 

[TheSilencer1313]

I'm hoping babe was just kidding when he/she said they would actually consider voting for Gingrich, and hopefully he/she was seriously joking about Newt being a conservative lol.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

That started me thinking of a catostrophic scenario. That in turn brought to mind a book I had read. You should read it. Scared the hell out o fme.

One Second After by William R. Forstchen. The forward is by Newt Gingrich. Now it is a book with an actual plot and what not. Not a science book. However I see the scenario as completely plausible. Scares the hell out of me.

Interesting....
I've actually read the forward from Gingrich in that book, just never the book itself.
I have however read a summary of the book, and you're absolutely right about it being a possible hell-like scenario.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Thousand-page bills don't normally face decades of jurisprudence to determine what they meant. The Bill of Rights did/does/will continue to do so.



You left out half the sentence. Did yo uthink that half was meaningless, a toss-in whose words were not carefully considered?

Also, do "arms" include handguns? Machine guns? Bazookas? Missles? Do you think Congress meant for homeowners to keep cannons in their backyards? Those are all arms. Without any sort of qualification or understadning of purpose, do you really think this meaning is clear?



Does this language protect people who are interested in reducing the security of a free state? Those who want to form unregulated militias? However, even while still not that clear, this is an improvement. The security of a free stateis hampered by the possession of missles by individuals, not helped.



Have there been regimes better at securing human rights? When and where?

The constitution is open ended for a reason.
Yes! It does include all of these things.
You don't think the founders took into consideration arms that were not invented yet when they wrote it?
While at the same time, they were creating some of the greatest inventions in history......
1000 page bills will never stand the test of time, and will disappear into obscurity when the people take their country back.
The open-ended constitution equals freedom and peace, and 1000 page bills equal shackles and bondage.
When was the last time you saw someone risk their life for a bill coming out of Washington?

Like a great man has said recently "No army can stop an idea whose time has come"

 

[Stoked]

The constitution is open ended for a reason.
Yes! It does include all of these things.
You don't think the founders took into consideration arms that were not invented yet when they wrote it?
While at the same time, they were creating some of the greatest inventions in history......
1000 page bills will never stand the test of time, and will disappear into obscurity when the people take their country back.
The open-ended constitution equals freedom and peace, and 1000 page bills equal shackles and bondage.
When was the last time you saw someone risk their life for a bill coming out of Washington?

Like a great man has said recently "No army can stop an idea whose time has come"

So you think it is ok for someone to buy and equip surface to air missles in their back yards? There may be a market for the 20,000-40,000 missles missing in Libya that no one knew about.

How do I corner this market is what I want to know?

 

[One Brow]

1000 page bills will never stand the test of time, and will disappear into obscurity when the people take their country back.

I agree. They are specific enough, precise enough, and clear enough that they typcially apply to the particular needs of the particular time. Meanwhile, your depiction of the Constitution as "open-ended" is my point: the language is not a precise description, and needs to be interpreted.