What's new

Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top