Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

[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.

 

[PearlWatson]

I will be voting for Mitt because he is the only person that can beat Obama. He is the only guy that could win 49 out of 50 states that is running.

What is your reasoning behind this statement?

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

One source amoung many. Perception.

I was really hoping green would answer the question and with a little more reasoning than "the liberal media tells me so." That can't be all the reasoning there is behind green's belief that Romney can win 49 of the 50 states.

 

[Stoked]

I was really hoping green would answer the question and with a little more reasoning than "the liberal media tells me so." That can't be all the reasoning there is behind green's belief that Romney can win 49 of the 50 states.

I have no idea why Green believe what he/she does. I am just saying that the general perception is that only Romney can beat Obama because of the media spin.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

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?

The same way you corner everything under the constitution.
At the state and local level, with people of that area voting on what to do about it.
At the same time, there's a pretty slim chance that you're going to have such a widespread problem with these weapons.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

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.

It is the people through their representatives that solves these problems at the local level, as the constitution demands.
Different areas have different issues, and that's why federal laws that are unconstitutional are just so.