I know, It's the LAW...so I shouldn't question it

Devil505 wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote: Always make me nervous when someone is so positive in seeing the complex as simple.



You mean like Obama closing the Gitmo detention center?

Sorry Mike...Pretty lame analogy.

Closing Gitmo is very well thought out & will take over a year to accomplish. Hardly simple.

LOL

Obama: Gitmo bad. Close gitmo.

Reality: Closing Gitmo hard to do. Could be worse than not closing.


"Well though out" is hardly a part of Obama's plans.

Today, Obama didn't even know who invented the automobile. Now he's giving GWB a run for his money in ignorance.

stockingfull wrote: Touche.

All of human endeavor, perhaps, is focused on deferring the inevitable.

I think the founders knew from whence they spoke.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The Constitution was not written in a vacuum. The people who wrote it were very educated(anyone you know read Greek and Latin?) and were embarking on what first appeared to be a suicide mission. To break away from the greatest empire the world had ever seen. It was not done lightly and without perspective.

People need to remember the circumstances surrounding their actions. I think some look strictly at the document and forget what brought it into being. They didn't move away from England only to replace it with another authoritarian body. Self determination was paramount. Not "what can the government give me".

samhill wrote:No jpete it wouldn`t have been a bad thing at all, just pointing out how some like to pick & choose lines that favor their way of thinking while ignoring others. If the last years hadn`t happened the country wouldn`t be where it`s at today, don`t know how much better it would be but I don`t think it could be much worse. I don`t claim to have many if any answers but I like what I`ve seen from Obama so far & it`s only been 5 weeks. If you prefer lies over being told like it is then maybe the next 4 years will be back to what we had. I`ll give this man his due.

What "lies" do you think I am believing? I certainly don't believe the lie that the government is the solution to the problems government created.

pvolcko wrote:His thinking was that defending the constitution was accomplished only by preserving the union, one did not exist independently of the other. He did not want to preserve it through use of force, but he was not willing to have federal forts taken by force without an equal response of force. And so the fighting began, the blockades started, and the conflict blossomed into a full blown war.

I'm not going to go through point by point but what does the presidents "thinking" have to do with anything? GWB "thought" Iraq had WMD's. Doesn't make it true.

I "think" I shouldn't pay income and property tax. Want to bet the government will show me the error in my thinking?

jpete wrote:I certainly don't believe the lie that the government is the solution to the problems government created.

It is no "Lie" to believe that one administration is quite capable of solving the problems created by the preceding administration.....It happens at almost every change of government...In every nation.(& we should all pray that it will happen now)
You simply can't make a claim that government is government....that they are all the same.

Someone much smarter than I am said it best....

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797

He didn't say government he agreed with, disagreed with, liked, or didn't like. He just said, "government". When it exists for its own sake, and not for the protection of the individual rights of the citizens of the country, it's a fearsome master. No longer even a dangerous servant.

The current economic problems this country faces has it's source in both parties, and judging by the actions of congress and President Obama recently, neither is inclined toward actually doing anything about the problem.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:I certainly don't believe the lie that the government is the solution to the problems government created.

It is no "Lie" to believe that one administration is quite capable of solving the problems created by the preceding administration.....It happens at almost every change of government...In every nation.(& we should all pray that it will happen now)
You simply can't make a claim that government is government....that they are all the same.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:I certainly don't believe the lie that the government is the solution to the problems government created.

It is no "Lie" to believe that one administration is quite capable of solving the problems created by the preceding administration.....It happens at almost every change of government...In every nation.(& we should all pray that it will happen now)
You simply can't make a claim that government is government....that they are all the same.

Yes, as a matter of fact I can. In fact, the "Obama Administration" more closely resembles the "Clinton Administration" with a few choice picks from the "Carter Administration".

Where's that "Change" I heard so much about? Besides the jingling in my pocket I mean.

Let me ask you something Devil, if I belonged to an organization that only allowed new members that were recommended by current members, would you say that everyone that belonged to the group GENERALLY held the same beliefs?

jpete wrote:Yes, as a matter of fact I can. In fact, the "Obama Administration" more closely resembles the "Clinton Administration" with a few choice picks from the "Carter Administration".

Where's that "Change" I heard so much about? Besides the jingling in my pocket I mean.

The "Change" we heard about (& are experiencing) is a change from the Bush disaster TO the Obama "Resurrection" .
(no one ever claimed that former Democrat administration personnel wouldn't be involved or,.... indeed welcome)

jpete wrote:Let me ask you something Devil, if I belonged to an organization that only allowed new members that were recommended by current members, would you say that everyone that belonged to the group GENERALLY held the same beliefs?

Of course. .......Therefore, since the Clinton era was successful economically, with peace & a budget surplus, I would welcome those similar beliefs & outcomes. Wouldn't you?

Devil505 wrote:Of course. .......Therefore, since the Clinton era was successful economically, with peace & a budget surplus, I would welcome those similar beliefs & outcomes. Wouldn't you?

Peace? Very debatable. Budget surplus? Not in the least. Steal from Social Security and Medicare plus a few Enron accounting tricks is more like it.

And the group I was referring to was the Council on Foreign Relations. Ever looked into them?

Why would all these people, which you just agreed should share similar beliefs because they belong to the same club, pretend to be opposing forces?

Dick Cheney
John Kerry
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
John, David & Nelson Rockefeller
Condolezza Rice
Paul Wolfowitz
Alan Greenspan
Colin Powell
Henry Kissinger
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich

And why would those people advocate for the dissolution of America?

http://books.google.com/books?id=lVf-k6 ... lt#PPP1,M1

Two sides of the same coin. R's and D's don't have your or the country's best interest in mind. Don't put your faith in them. They are all liars.

jpete wrote:Peace? Very debatable. Budget surplus? Not in the least. Steal from Social Security and Medicare plus a few Enron accounting tricks is more like it.

And the group I was referring to was the Council on Foreign Relations. Ever looked into them?

Why would all these people, which you just agreed should share similar beliefs because they belong to the same club, pretend to be opposing forces?

Dick Cheney
John Kerry
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
John, David & Nelson Rockefeller
Condolezza Rice
Paul Wolfowitz
Alan Greenspan
Colin Powell
Henry Kissinger
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich

And why would those people advocate for the dissolution of America?

http://books.google.com/books?id=lVf-k6 ... lt#PPP1,M1

Two sides of the same coin. R's and D's don't have your or the country's best interest in mind. Don't put your faith in them. They are all liars.

Geezm, there are a lot of Bilderbergers on that list too! Go figure.

mikeandgerry wrote:
Geezm, there are a lot of Bilderbergers on that list too! Go figure.

And Tri-lats, but who's counting.

I don't care if the all are Girl Scouts. Devil agreed that in a private club where the only way to gain membership is to be recommended by a current member, it is reasonable to assume that all the members share similar beliefs.

David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski are evil forces on this planet. Who would want to be members of their club?

jpete wrote:Devil agreed that in a private club where the only way to gain membership is to be recommended by a current member, it is reasonable to assume that all the members share similar beliefs.

That's not what you asked me!

jpete wrote:Let me ask you something Devil, if I belonged to an organization that only allowed new members that were recommended by current members, would you say that everyone that belonged to the group GENERALLY held the same beliefs?

(my highlights)

In the context of the question you asked, you qualified it by using the word Generally...whjich obviously refers (in your question) to the ideals/mission of the specific group they are members of...not their political or moral views. Big difference.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:Devil agreed that in a private club where the only way to gain membership is to be recommended by a current member, it is reasonable to assume that all the members share similar beliefs.

That's not what you asked me!

jpete wrote:Let me ask you something Devil, if I belonged to an organization that only allowed new members that were recommended by current members, would you say that everyone that belonged to the group GENERALLY held the same beliefs?

(my highlights)

In the context of the question you asked, you qualified it by using the word Generally...whjich obviously refers (in your question) to the ideals/mission of the specific group they are members of...not their political or moral views. Big difference.

No difference. You just got bit when you found out what club I was talking about.

Let's say it's the Masons or the Knights of Columbus, or the Shriners. Do you think the members of those groups "generally" share "similar" beliefs?

And if the belief of that group were the dissolution of the USA, why would I want to be a member of that group? Especially when there are other members of that group I publicly demonize.

jpete wrote:Let's say it's the Masons or the Knights of Columbus, or the Shriners. Do you think the members of those groups "generally" share "similar" beliefs?

You saying that ALL Masons or Knights belong to the same political party & share the same political beliefs?

jpete wrote:And if the belief of that group were the dissolution of the USA, why would I want to be a member of that group?

Why?...Could be lots of reasons. (true story: In High School I joined the Teenage Republican Club (no lie) because I liked a cute girl (Sandy Janes) who was a member!!)

if I remember the meetings, it was to learn how to:

trip sweet old ladies when they crossed the street & steal their purses
learn the easiest way to hide assets (candy bars at that point)
The correct way to grimace
Take the fifth

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:Let's say it's the Masons or the Knights of Columbus, or the Shriners. Do you think the members of those groups "generally" share "similar" beliefs?

You saying that ALL Masons or Knights belong to the same political party?

I'm saying they have similar ideological beliefs. Right or wrong?

jpete wrote:And if the belief of that group were the dissolution of the USA, why would I want to be a member of that group?

Devil505 wrote: Why?...Could be lots of reasons. (true story: In High School I joined the Teenage Republican Club (no lie) because I liked a cute girl (Sandy Janes) who was a member!!)

if I remember the meetings, it was to learn how to:

trip sweet old ladies when they crossed he street & steal their purses
learn the easiest way to hide assets (candy bars at that point)
The correct way to grimace
Take the fifth

I'm not sure Newt Gingrich finds Bill Clinton all that attractive.

Care to hazard a guess on why people who present themselves as diametrically opposed in public would belong to the same private club? A club with an agenda. The agenda is merging the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

R's and D's are something to give the masses something to fight about.