|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2005 19:58:58 GMT -5
Well put as usual and congratulations on passing the famed "300 mark". [cue fanfare]
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Mar 3, 2005 19:42:00 GMT -5
Thanks,
I've had some downtime this week. I'm padding my stats here at Rantweb.
Anyways, while we're on this rule of law kick, I want to point out that the Second Ammendment was born of the fear our founders had of a centralized government. Contrary to what liberals would have us believe, the Second Ammendment was not passed to give us the means by which to kill our food and is thus obsolete today because we have meat packing plants and grocery stores.
The Second Ammendment was passed to give the people the means and resources to rise up against and overtake a central government that has overstepped its Constitutional bounds.
Perhaps liberals truly oppose guns because they believe guns are the root of all crime. However, it seems awefully suspicious to me that the same party that promotes big government as the end all and be all of our society also pushes for the elimination of arms ownership by private citizens. Either way it shows how out of touch they are with the concepts of personal freedom.
In the end, an armed society is a free society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 3, 2005 20:09:33 GMT -5
The liberal lie doesn’t hold true even today. All my food is freshly killed and I wouldn't have it any other way.  Hey! I rhymed! Can you say bumper sticker? |
|
|
|
Post by GregoryA on Mar 4, 2005 9:43:59 GMT -5
The liberal lie doesn’t hold true even today. All my food is freshly killed and I wouldn't have it any other way. Hey! I rhymed! Can you say bumper sticker? ;D Yum! The more dead things on which we dine The better off will be the state of mankind! Hitler was a non-smoking, tea tottling, vegitarian. He was really in touch with the spirtitual side of his being. Maybe if he had a mooing hunk of prime rib, a few Chivas Regals on the rocks, and and smoked a nice fat cigar he would have been less agressive. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 4, 2005 18:18:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriot on Mar 4, 2005 20:36:26 GMT -5
In response to Midcan5 and UncleVinny, Mo writes:
In case you think people are reading your long winded, boring crap and using your links, I'll tell you that they probably are not.
That rings of more cogency than anything else I've seen in this thread! ;D
I meandered through the first few posts, hunting for what I had hoped would be a sound argument supported by a shred of evidence. Instead we are treated to the verbosity of the inane. More punch and less pizzazz would be appreciated, hopefully with a scintilla of rectified judgment.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Mar 13, 2005 17:10:15 GMT -5
Seems like no one read the original piece but rather decided the argument was with a political definition. Just like conservatives to miss the point. America is both and should it become a land of the very rich and mostly poor it really doesn't matter what it was, it is more about what it becomes. www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htmGovernment; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626] Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389. The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868. Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights). |
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Mar 14, 2005 22:04:44 GMT -5
Medican,
The last paragraph of your previous post sums up perfectly the fears of our founding fathers when it comes to democracy.
As you said, "The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic."
True
Also you said, "In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges."
True also, and very dangerous.
Read our Constitution again. Our rights are not granted to us by government. They are endowed by our creator, independent from government.
The responsibility of a republic government is to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, a document that, like it or not, is rooted in the Ten Commandments and the belief that the freedom of man is granted by God, not men.
When the Communists overtook Russia, the first thing they did was remove every symbol of religious faith from public life. The people became the subjects of the state and subject to the state. The idea of God-given freedom was expunged and replaced by the idea that rights are granted by and subject to revocation by the state.
The extreme left in this country (many of whom would proudly call themselves Communists) are waging the same assualt on freedom that the Bolshevik Revolution did in Russia.
As for the Ten Commandments, that aweful repressive doctrine, with which one would you not agree? Which one is so out of whack as to cause such an outrage by the left. Love your neighbor, BLASPHEMY. Don't lie, Don't steal, Don't murder, Do right by your mother and father, OUTLANDISH!
|
|
|
|
Post by ExecutorZurg on Mar 16, 2005 22:35:43 GMT -5
It's the first two the liberals have a holy Hathor about. They don't like the idea that someone is looking over them while they're being "naughty."
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Mar 31, 2005 19:35:56 GMT -5
This guy has some tough thoughts on government. web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.htmlWHY DEMOCRACY IS WRONG In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes? So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Apr 8, 2005 18:52:32 GMT -5
Someone should read the Constitution to Tom DeLay!
He doesn't like the way things go for him in his many greedy scandals and shady dealings, so he calls the courts the bad guys. Meanwhile, the wisedom of the Constitution, the checks and balances system, was designed just so egomaniacs like DeLay won't go too far in ripping off the taxpayers. Sheesh, half a million dollars for his family for work on his campaigns! Luxury trips abroad financed by foreign lobbyists. People like that are an embarrassment to the good politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Apr 13, 2005 18:04:50 GMT -5
Delay is a real gem. www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0413-08.htm"DeLay was admonished three times last year by the House ethics committee. Recent articles have disclosed that his wife and daughter were paid approximately $500,000 in recent years by political organizations under his control, and have raised questions about the financing of three overseas trips he took." |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Apr 13, 2005 21:01:24 GMT -5
Ahh jeeze educate yourselves. It wasn't taxpayer money. What a witch hunt. I don't care for the nepatism crap, but many of them do it. It's not illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Apr 26, 2005 7:07:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Apr 26, 2005 20:24:14 GMT -5
Medican, I don't know what's worse, your political ideology or the fact that you get your news from the Rolling Stone!!
|
|
