Posted on 08/31/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
The first truth we must find is a way to swallow this - we have exactly the government we elected!
Our Republican President has a public approval rating hovering around 30% and our Democrat congress has an approval rating down around 20%. Clearly, we don’t think much of our government, but we elected them and what does that say about us?
(snip)
In my last column titled “Ron Paul—A Liberal-tarian, not a Conservative," I demonstrated how easy it is to attack any politician on his alleged voting record, demonize an entire group on the basis of a few in that group who are willing to use unethical tactics to promote their allegedly ethical candidate, and cause a firestorm of political banter, both pro and con, without ever really getting to the heart of the subject at hand.
Welcome to American politics circa 2007
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhillcoffeehouse.com ...
Why do some FReepers insist on butting into a conversation with cutesy little comments without ever actually contributing anything to the discussion?
--------
If it wasn't the question, it should have been.
Do you talk to people like that when god is watching? Is this an example of how Christians treat people or are you the exception?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a pretty good guideline. Rarely do I encounter freepers where I can feel the venom in their words.
Also you discounted the blog posting linked because it wasn’t an article. Does that mean that you must go through the mind mushing college of journalism and become employed by the propaganda machine before a person can post “articles”? Is that how you measure their credentials?
Bill Whittle I hold in very high esteem. He is just one person sharing his perception of the world. I am just one person sharing my perception of the world. You are just one person sharing your perception of the world. Each has value and I value Bill Wittle’s perception more than yours.
I have found that people seeking to belittle others are themselves small inside. Grow a little taller, give a bit more, open your heart, don’t bully, don’t belittle others words. Why not show people the beauty inside instead of the dark?
I’m probably going to get into so much trouble with this post. Just trying to help. Flame away.
Why has RP voted consistently against the Patriot Act? Does he believe our law enforcement and intelligence officials should have the tools they have requested to defend us? Does he believe that we are at war?
LOL! Do I talk to people 'like that'? Like what? That's the second time you made your nonsensical little post, and as you directed it to me, I was well within my rights to reply.
IMHO- God is always watching. I believe 'thou shalt not bear false witness' is something to live by.
If it hurts people's feeeeeeelings, too bad.
-----
Is this an example of how Christians treat people or are you the exception?
I don't know. Maybe you should take a survey.
-----
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a pretty good guideline. Rarely do I encounter freepers where I can feel the venom in their words.
What you consider 'venom', I consider bluntness. I see no reason to waste people's time dancing around before I get to the salient point.
Perhaps you should ask yourself where you get the right to judge other peoples intentions. 'Do unto others' and all that.
-----
Also you discounted the blog posting linked because it wasn’t an article. Does that mean that you must go through the mind mushing college of journalism and become employed by the propaganda machine before a person can post “articles”? Is that how you measure their credentials?
No, I discounted the blog because without outside sources, It's just another opinion. I would have done the same for a MSM article.
If your so sure of the veracity of the stated opinion, why don't you find some historical documentation to back it up?
-----
Bill Whittle I hold in very high esteem. He is just one person sharing his perception of the world. I am just one person sharing my perception of the world. You are just one person sharing your perception of the world. Each has value and I value Bill Wittle’s perception more than yours.
You are well within your rights to value anyones opinion in any manner you choose.
-----
I have found that people seeking to belittle others are themselves small inside. Grow a little taller, give a bit more, open your heart, don’t bully, don’t belittle others words. Why not show people the beauty inside instead of the dark?
Nice little speech. If you'll read the rest of your post, I think you'll find you've behaved in a manner that you just condemned.
-----
I’m probably going to get into so much trouble with this post. Just trying to help. Flame away.
LOL!
Why would you get in trouble? Why would I flame you?
You have as much right to your opinion as I have to mine.
-----
Look, let me make it simple for you:
I'm here to learn, discuss and share ideas with my fellow FReepers, primarily concerning the Constitution.
FReepers USED to source the assertions they made, it was part of FReeper etiquette.
The problem is that this is no longer a place to learn. The civil debates here have turned into a free-for-all. Rarely will you see sources anymore. Everyone just yells 'Wrong!', or makes nonsensical little comments.
I have no problem discussing anything, provided you back it up. Regurgitating what you think you already 'know' is meaningless, as the government has prostituted the meaning and intent of the Constitution beyond any recognition.
And, quite frankly, my dear......
I want to know where the H-E(double)-L OUR RIGHTS WENT!
I want to know where the H-E(double)-L OUR RIGHTS WENT!
Source?
As that was an opinion, not an assertion of Constitutional law, it requires no 'source'. Sorry you can't tell the difference.
Also, thanks for so clearly illustrating the point I just made about the changes that have occurred on FR.
Have a nice day.
I liked the idea that you had to be a property owner to vote.
IMHO- The right to vote should be earned, not bestowed.
If someone doesn't have enough work ethic to acquire a piece property, they shouldn't be taking part in elections.
“Why has RP voted consistently against the Patriot Act? Does he believe our law enforcement and intelligence officials should have the tools they have requested to defend us? Does he believe that we are at war?”
Is there a credible source disclosing the number of actual terrorists snared utilizing the provisions of the pat act over these last six years?
If any have been caught that could not have poosibly been caught without the pat act, what is their current status?
Do you consider the FBI and the intelligence community to be credible sources? They have testified under oath before Congress for the need of the Patriot Act.
"Mr. Chairman, for over two and a half years, the PATRIOT Act has proved extraordinarily beneficial in the war on terrorism and has changed the way the FBI does business. Many of our counterterrorism successes, in fact, are the direct results of provisions included in the Act, a number of which are scheduled to "sunset" at the end of next year. I strongly believe it is vital to our national security to keep each of these provisions intact. Without them, the FBI could be forced back into pre-September 11 practices, attempting to fight the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our backs."
"Let me give you just a few examples that illustrate the importance of the PATRIOT Act to our counterterrorism efforts:
First and foremost, the PATRIOT Act – along with the revision of the Attorney General's investigative guidelines and the 2002 decision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review – tore down the wall that stood between the intelligence investigators responding to terrorist threats and the criminal investigators responding to those same threats.
• Prior to September 11, an Agent investigating the intelligence side of a terrorism case was barred from discussing the case with an Agent across the hall who was working the criminal side of that same investigation. For instance, if a court-ordered criminal wiretap turned up intelligence information, the criminal investigator could not share that information with the intelligence investigator – he could not even suggest that the intelligence investigator should seek a wiretap to collect the information for himself. If the criminal investigator served a grand jury subpoena to a suspect's bank, he could not divulge any information found in those bank records to the intelligence investigator. Instead, the intelligence investigator would have to issue a National Security Letter in order to procure that same information. • The removal of the "wall" has allowed government investigators to share information freely. Now, criminal investigative information that contains foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including grand jury and wiretap information, can be shared with intelligence officials. This increased ability to share information has disrupted terrorist operations in their early stages -- such as the successful dismantling of the "Portland Seven" terror cell -- and has led to numerous arrests, prosecutions, and convictions in terrorism cases.
I suggest you read the entire testimony. And there are others from the CIA.
Bump for later return.
I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't so because, their obsessive call for Constitutional redress notwithstanding, they'd subconsciously prefer living under the Articles of Confederation instead.
Well, I came back for a look. Sorry I did, too. You all are trying to debate with demagogues. They have no interest in honest, open debate. Their sole purpose is to maneuver statements to their benefit, then trash patronizingly the commenter. It’s their game; and one that marks their sorry lot in life.
As we discussed before, these are True Believers who have no interest in politics outside manipulating opinions and events to be perceived as favorable to their candidate. Truth be damned, and honesty along with it.
Sorry, but I have better things to attend to right now. Tho I’m happy to say they will indeed discover at the end, which trumps the other; God or human law. They will be sorely vexed. You’ve been spot on.
Now as the the issue of defending family vs the Constitution. I would, in the circumstances of even just a few years ago, agree with you. Indeed the history of our military efforts are almost elusively reactionary. In the days when we could see an enemy coming and defend ourselves reactively, that worked well.
Now we have just exited an interesting age, and age where there were weapons that could essitinally kill millions with little warning. We had one thing working in our favor even then as a preventative measure, the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction. Both sides, the Soviets and the US, were willing to die for their respective countries. Willing, but not wanting, neither side had anyone wanting to die for their cause.
That is the big difference verses what we have in the 21st century. We now face an enemy either with or getting close to the very same weapons that hung over our heads in the last 50 years. Except this enemy wants to die for its cause. Retaliation means nothing to them, they welcome it. Mutual Assured Destruction will no longer be effective.
This dynamic change in warfare is something that was beyond the wildest dreams of many just a few decades ago, and certainly beyond the dreams of our Founders. This change leaves us with few choices. We can withdraw into our borders, do our our best to develop defenses against an aerial attack and do our best to secure our borders against a determined foe. Both of these are acceptable and need to be done, however in my opinion, as well as others even more knowledgeable than I, it is not enough. The best missile defense is to make sure it is never launched. It also follows that the best way to see who may want to enter our country to do harm is to be where they want to venture from. I know some are here, and that is part of the internal operation that is on going as well. It takes a combination of things in this day and age to defend our nation.
This is where I also take my stance as it pertains to the Constitution and defending my family. I will quote you than give my answer;
“...where should I place my allegiance when some one wishes to use The Constitution in asking me to abdicate my responsibility to God.”
I find that incredible. You’re gonna have to link me to that one.
I have no link because there is nothing to link to, it comes from me directly, as well as others, who want a more active defense. In being more concerned with what is and isn't Constitutional than taking a proactive stance against our modern 21st Century enemies, you yourself and those who take your position are the ones who indeed are asking me to make that very choice, my family or the Constitution. I support my countries current efforts and indeed wish them expanded to other rouge states. My God, Iran just tested a 4000 km range missile and has made another break through in enrichment.
I know that many will tell us that Paul is strong on defense and that when it comes down to it he will respond with force and do it in respect to the Constitution. Well there is the problem, respond. Respond to what, the gaping hole that was once Wall Street or the Washington Monument? What about the thousands, and perhaps millions dead, what is their response? When looking back at such a disaster, how kind will history judge us when it is obvious that we could have prevented such an attack simply by playing against the rules laid out over 200 years ago in antoher time and another world? What do we say to the dead, what do we say to their survivors, we could not act because of the Constitution? I can only imagine their response.
We are blessed that by the very nature of our Country's rules and laws that a man need rarely if ever have to choose between between Earthly powers and the King of Heaven, but there comes a point a man may have to decide. I choose the Higher authority.
I enjoy the debate though, it has made me review my feeling and thoughts. The beautiful thing is, it has made me stonger in my convictions.
I understand, and it shows through. But for me it gets old. Same ol', same ol'. There are far finer humans to correspond with.
It’s like becoming a better Racquetball player. You improve by hitting the same wall again and again...
There, I fixed it :)
Again I look at the analogy I have used before. There is a difference between playing the notes and making music...
It is up to us whether that music is Bach or the Beastie Boys...
I’ve just spent an hour on my cell phone trying to make reservations for a trip later this month that should have been able to be made over the Internet. The problem is we have a pet and finding a motel that allows pets over 15-20# is like pulling teeth. But, we got the job done.
Anyway, technically correct? Perhaps. But to argue over the validity of the words ‘Declaration of War’ vs. some other same-meaning term is absurd. And they only do it to antagonize. That’s my beef, and I stand by it. There are far nicer, and far more reasonable people on FR with which to converse. They’re the bottom feeders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.