Why in the hell would this administration be against a country getting rid of someone who wants to be the next Hugo Chavez? This has got to be the most insane move I have every seen in foreign policy, and just goes to show that Obama really does subscribe to the Marxist revolution...
In a constantly expanding universe I cannot even PROVE to you that either one of us exist...so to prove wrong on an issue where 90% of the debate is based on opinion...no, no I cant.
In a constantly expanding universe I cannot even PROVE to you that either one of us exist...so to prove wrong on an issue where 90% of the debate is based on opinion...no, no I cant.
Then the name calling means exactly didly sh*t to me. I expressed my opinion on something and you attack my opinions and try to belittle them... If you take issue with something and think I am wrong, I would love to hear why, but when you attack someones personal views just for the sake of intolerance.
In a constantly expanding universe I cannot even PROVE to you that either one of us exist...so to prove wrong on an issue where 90% of the debate is based on opinion...no, no I cant.
cop out answer.
there are many quotes from Obama, his Appointees, and other people that he has surrounded himself with, that are on video, that support the claim that Obama is in favor of a Marx-like philosophy. His actions speak for themselves. from the Joe the plumber "redistribution of wealth" comment, to his association with Bill Ayers, to his silent acceptance of Hugo Chaves, to the attempted take over of 1/6th of the US economy via "health care reform", to the take over of US banks, to the take over of US autos, to the hoisting of the flag of the People's Republic of China over the white house, his message has been one in line with a more socialist/fascist style government.
And yours mean even less than that to me Puro. I didnt attack attack anyone...just get a kick out of the constant anger and screaming about the way this country is being run on a cigar website that does nothing to influence anyones opinions or even offer a solution (as though one exists for any of these topics with a govt. more concerned with their own power than getting things done---Repubs and Dems)---just a forum to find like minded people to reinforce your own beliefs. It just gives me a little kick, thats all.
And yours mean even less than that to me Puro. I didnt attack attack anyone...just get a kick out of the constant anger and screaming about the way this country is being run on a cigar website that does nothing to influence anyones opinions or even offer a solution (as though one exists for any of these topics with a govt. more concerned with their own power than getting things done---Repubs and Dems)---just a forum to find like minded people to reinforce your own beliefs. It just gives me a little kick, thats all.
I didn't say you attacked someone, I said you attacked someone's opinions. Also you couldn't be farther from the truth. I don't need anyone to reinforce my beliefs. I know what I think, and how I feel, and don't care if I'm the only SOB out there that feels this way. I enjoy this forum and this thread in partucular because it gives me a place to "rant" and vent a little bit about all the crap that goes on in the country and around the world. You missed the good old days when we had Urbi, Duty, and Phobic all on here debating with me and Kuzi. That was fun! They were all pretty liberal on most things, but had good, strong, well thought out arguements. That is what actually got me started posting political views on here.
its lets people vent about frustrations. this is very cathartic.
it lets people discuss current events. many are important. it may or may not influence people but the fact that debate can occur is great.
it makes people think. thinking has never been looked down on by me. i want to hear all sides. i want to argue about it. I have been influenced by this forum. may people have made many good arguments in this thread. i have changed my views on a few things.
if you think there is no solution therefor its not worth talking about then i kinda feel sorry for you. i wont attempt to change your mind. you have already told us that nothing we say will so there is no point.
it gives you a kick to come in here and call puro a name because you dont believe the same thing he does? wow... i dont understand that. some may even call that "hate mongering"
no wait.... only republicans can get that designation. my bad.
You missed the good old days when we had Urbi, Duty, and Phobic all on here debating with me and Kuzi. That was fun! They were all pretty liberal on most things, but had good, strong, well thought out arguements. That is what actually got me started posting political views on here.
yeah... those were the days
they really made me think about my belief system.
im not sure i would have gone out and read as much as i have if it wasnt for those guys. the argument made me learn more. thats probably the most important thing about this thread.
Kuzi, I love your long answers---expecially when I was talking to Puro on that one...but respect your opinion none the less. I cant fight the debate of the arguement or the issue of the problem today, too tiring and too much trying to get to 5 o clock and go home. I would however like to have the option for the 2 (or 12) martini lunch this afternoon....which I do not think is coming my way.
[quote user="kuzi16"it gives you a kick to come in here and call puro a name because you dont believe the same thing he does? wow... i dont understand that. quote]
[quote user="kuzi16"it gives you a kick to come in here and call puro a name because you dont believe the same thing he does? wow... i dont understand that. quote]
iduno... i wouldnt say its a "mock what they dont understand" situation.
i think its more along the lines of "is it in the spirit of the thread" thing.
this thread has always been a place to discuss and debate political hot topics with three distinct points of view. (Conservative, liberal, libertarian) these arguments generally have been well documented, linked, and well thought out. if not one of those they have been questions asked designed prove a point or lead to another point. we have refrained from name calling for the most part because it has been mutually agreed that it does not reflect well on the intent of the thread-- to learn through debate.
anyone is more than welcome to post in the thread, and i cant and wont try to censor posts, but i do feel that anything that strays away from the serious debate detracts from the poster, and the thread.
...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Not to jump into you guy's conversation the middle of everything, but I couldn't help but notice this statement. Although strength can be found in these words, I've always found that most people will throw these words around without knowing exactly how Thomas Jefferson followed them in the Declaration of Independence. They almost seem naked to me without the following sentences:
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. 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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I won't bore you with the rest, but Jefferson goes on to describe the actions by the King of England that has reduced them to "absolute despotism" which include taxation without representation, sentencing without trial, blockades of trade routes intended to starve a civilization, tyrades of royal soldiers on villages, public executions to instill fear, etc., etc.
So, in closing, I just don't see how these word are relevent in any modern day argument designed to abolish or alter government as long as those who are in power have been placed into power by the people of a republic or democracy.
...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Not to jump into you guy's conversation the middle of everything, but I couldn't help but notice this statement. Although strength can be found in these words, I've always found that most people will throw these words around without knowing exactly how Thomas Jefferson followed them in the Declaration of Independence. They almost seem naked to me without the following sentences:
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. 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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I won't bore you with the rest, but Jefferson goes on to describe the actions by the King of England that has reduced them to "absolute despotism" which include taxation without representation, sentencing without trial, blockades of trade routes intended to starve a civilization, tyrades of royal soldiers on villages, public executions to instill fear, etc., etc.
So, in closing, I just don't see how these word are relevent in any modern day argument designed to abolish or alter government as long as those who are in power have been placed into power by the people of a republic or democracy.
But what happens when that republic or democracy begins to threaten these things? Do we the people not hold the right to abolish or alter our government? Is it not possible for a republic or democracy to eventually come to a point to where they do threaten life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Just because we live in a country far more free than it was at that time, doesn't change the fact that these principles should be protected.
...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Not to jump into you guy's conversation the middle of everything, but I couldn't help but notice this statement. Although strength can be found in these words, I've always found that most people will throw these words around without knowing exactly how Thomas Jefferson followed them in the Declaration of Independence. They almost seem naked to me without the following sentences:
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. 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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I won't bore you with the rest, but Jefferson goes on to describe the actions by the King of England that has reduced them to "absolute despotism" which include taxation without representation, sentencing without trial, blockades of trade routes intended to starve a civilization, tyrades of royal soldiers on villages, public executions to instill fear, etc., etc.
So, in closing, I just don't see how these word are relevent in any modern day argument designed to abolish or alter government as long as those who are in power have been placed into power by the people of a republic or democracy.
It wasn't actually being used in the way you described. It was being used to show that Healthcare is not a right and can never be a right. It wasn't used to demand the overthrow of the government. Healthcare isn't a right, it is something people should provide for themselves and it is not the place of the government to do so.
And I probably misread your intentions coming into your conversation halfway through. And I feel I'm venting out some frustrations from the things I hear at work sometimes, so I'll apologize in advance for that. I work with a lot of prior Navy, Marines, Army, Airforce, and current military personnel as well and I often hear people say that this government should be overthrown and I've actually heard many plans to take it by force. Again, I'm not implying this is your intention. However, I feel that most of the problems that we're faced with these days are the "light and transient causes" that Jefferson spoke of, meaning, though altering, they are not life threatening, and they are not situations that can not be worked through and progressed into something better, not permenant or indefinate; this is the true meaning of transient and is the case with the health care motions as they can be overturned at a later date. I think a better solution to the issues presented to us in modern day under a working structuralized government is another of Jefferson's works which can be clearly read as one of the quotes surrounding him in his own monument in Washington, DC.
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
In this instance Jefferson agrees that issues and problems arise with the contrast of past generations with the ever developing minds of today and tomorrow's generations. Here he invisions changes in institutions, departments, policy, leaders as the answer and not the overthrow of an entire system.
im not looking to overthrow a system. i am looking to live up to the system that has brought this nation more prosperity in a shorter time than any country in the history of the world. i was using those words in the sense that "Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
(Thomas Jefferson)
i know how those words from the declaration were used. they were used to declare independence from government had become tyrannical in nature. this type of tyranny is something that i want to prevent. we are heading down that road. Jefferson predicted it:
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
and
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
he also had comments on how to deal with tyranny:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
and
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
a few other thoughts from Jefferson concerning the relationship of a government and its constituents
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.
With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
and
Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable.
exactly. this isnt the "hitler moment" many conservatives think it is.
of all the BS this administration spewing, why are we worried about THIS?
replace the words "health insurance" with any other good or service and see how much sense it makes.
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy a computer under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy fire insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy food under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
again, can someone please tell me how this is not an overbearing government or how is this not a violation of my rights? seriously, i want to know.
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy lime green and purple bell bottom jeans under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday."
Now that doesn't sound crazy at all... Geez Kuzi, your points are ALWAYS so far off it's not even funny! *insert sarcasm font here*
replace the words "health insurance" with any other good or service and see how much sense it makes.
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy a computer under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy fire insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy food under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
again, can someone please tell me how this is not an overbearing government or how is this not a violation of my rights? seriously, i want to know.
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy lime green and purple bell bottom jeans under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday."
Now that doesn't sound crazy at all... Geez Kuzi, your points are ALWAYS so far off it's not even funny! *insert sarcasm font here*
oh ***. i better get my lime green and purple bell bottom jeans
replace the words "health insurance" with any other good or service and see how much sense it makes.
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy a computer under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy fire insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy food under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
again, can someone please tell me how this is not an overbearing government or how is this not a violation of my rights? seriously, i want to know.
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy lime green and purple bell bottom jeans under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday."
Now that doesn't sound crazy at all... Geez Kuzi, your points are ALWAYS so far off it's not even funny! *insert sarcasm font here*
oh ***. i better get my lime green and purple bell bottom jeans
Haha, Ok, when you do, you HAVE TO post pics of that on here!
Comments
now, imagine if someone on the conservative side said this about democrats.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/slash-aid-honduras/
Why in the hell would this administration be against a country getting rid of someone who wants to be the next Hugo Chavez? This has got to be the most insane move I have every seen in foreign policy, and just goes to show that Obama really does subscribe to the Marxist revolution...
there are many quotes from Obama, his Appointees, and other people that he has surrounded himself with, that are on video, that support the claim that Obama is in favor of a Marx-like philosophy. His actions speak for themselves. from the Joe the plumber "redistribution of wealth" comment, to his association with Bill Ayers, to his silent acceptance of Hugo Chaves, to the attempted take over of 1/6th of the US economy via "health care reform", to the take over of US banks, to the take over of US autos, to the hoisting of the flag of the People's Republic of China over the white house, his message has been one in line with a more socialist/fascist style government.
it does server a purpose on many levels.
its lets people vent about frustrations. this is very cathartic.
it lets people discuss current events. many are important. it may or may not influence people but the fact that debate can occur is great.
it makes people think. thinking has never been looked down on by me. i want to hear all sides. i want to argue about it. I have been influenced by this forum. may people have made many good arguments in this thread. i have changed my views on a few things.
if you think there is no solution therefor its not worth talking about then i kinda feel sorry for you. i wont attempt to change your mind. you have already told us that nothing we say will so there is no point.
it gives you a kick to come in here and call puro a name because you dont believe the same thing he does?
wow... i dont understand that.
some may even call that "hate mongering"
no wait.... only republicans can get that designation. my bad.
they really made me think about my belief system.
im not sure i would have gone out and read as much as i have if it wasnt for those guys. the argument made me learn more.
thats probably the most important thing about this thread.
wow... i dont understand that. quote]
People always mock what they do not understand...
i think its more along the lines of "is it in the spirit of the thread" thing.
this thread has always been a place to discuss and debate political hot topics with three distinct points of view. (Conservative, liberal, libertarian) these arguments generally have been well documented, linked, and well thought out. if not one of those they have been questions asked designed prove a point or lead to another point.
we have refrained from name calling for the most part because it has been mutually agreed that it does not reflect well on the intent of the thread-- to learn through debate.
anyone is more than welcome to post in the thread, and i cant and wont try to censor posts, but i do feel that anything that strays away from the serious debate detracts from the poster, and the thread.
except for me...
Not to jump into you guy's conversation the middle of everything, but I couldn't help but notice this statement. Although strength can be found in these words, I've always found that most people will throw these words around without knowing exactly how Thomas Jefferson followed them in the Declaration of Independence. They almost seem naked to me without the following sentences:
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. 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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I won't bore you with the rest, but Jefferson goes on to describe the actions by the King of England that has reduced them to "absolute despotism" which include taxation without representation, sentencing without trial, blockades of trade routes intended to starve a civilization, tyrades of royal soldiers on villages, public executions to instill fear, etc., etc.
So, in closing, I just don't see how these word are relevent in any modern day argument designed to abolish or alter government as long as those who are in power have been placed into power by the people of a republic or democracy.
Just because we live in a country far more free than it was at that time, doesn't change the fact that these principles should be protected.
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
In this instance Jefferson agrees that issues and problems arise with the contrast of past generations with the ever developing minds of today and tomorrow's generations. Here he invisions changes in institutions, departments, policy, leaders as the answer and not the overthrow of an entire system.
i am looking to live up to the system that has brought this nation more prosperity in a shorter time than any country in the history of the world. i was using those words in the sense that "Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." (Thomas Jefferson)
i know how those words from the declaration were used. they were used to declare independence from government had become tyrannical in nature. this type of tyranny is something that i want to prevent. we are heading down that road. Jefferson predicted it:
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
and
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
he also had comments on how to deal with tyranny:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
and
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
a few other thoughts from Jefferson concerning the relationship of a government and its constituents
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
from the article:
The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.
With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
and
Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable.
exactly. this isnt the "hitler moment" many conservatives think it is.
of all the BS this administration spewing, why are we worried about THIS?
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
replace the words "health insurance" with any other good or service and see how much sense it makes.
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy a computer under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy fire insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy food under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
again, can someone please tell me how this is not an overbearing government or how is this not a violation of my rights? seriously, i want to know.
Now that doesn't sound crazy at all... Geez Kuzi, your points are ALWAYS so far off it's not even funny! *insert sarcasm font here*