Guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 And a learned voice from the past...... James Madison, August 1793 Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . . [it should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature. . . . The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war. . . the power of raising armies. . . the power of creating offices. . . . A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted. The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them. The separation of the power of creating offices from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices for the sake of gratifying favourites or multiplying dependents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 HB: Barring Terrorist Events? Cheney has virtually guaranteed one, which is of course having some influence of the bond market regardless of the reality. The question I am concerned about is........... will the bond market be able to pass signals forward in sufficient time to head off disasterous results for the economy as a whole? Until substanciated answeres are in evidence (wait and see), my personal position is and will remain in the extreme caution realm. Diversion....I have noticed many posts and articles on Roosevelts recall of the peoples gold. The bank notes were withdrawn from circulation. Individuals may have turned their gold into the banks, unknowingly. "Numistic" collectors were exempt. I personally own several double-eagles that originated in the maternal side of the family's farms...butter,eggs,chickens,fresh vegestables,cattle and hogs. Hard working people who believed in thrift.....before 1913 and the evaloution of omnipotent government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian4 Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 Along the lines of Hunters post about James Madisons wise musings. Riddle me this-and leave all politics and Ideology out of your answer. Why?? would any President who thrust his Country into an unjustified war, who took a hard won surplus and turned it into a deficit the size of which the world has never seen, who has turned Civil Liberties on its head, who has cut taxes as the size of the Government and the deficit has exploded (pouring Gasoline on the Fire) who uses terror and torture, why oh WHY would that man deserve re-election-WHY? The election is going to be close when it should be a landslide for anybody but him-WHY?? what can his supporters point too-Riddle me that-I'd like to know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FranciscoTheMan Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 Here is an article that suggests a total failure of the U.S. mission in Iraq. If this article has any sembemlence of truth, it would seem that the Vietnamization of Iraq is now complete. Richard Holbrook (no hero of mine) assured television viewers this morning that Saigon was considerably safer during his 3 years there than Bagdad is currently; and that given the security conditions conducting an election in 6 months time is inconceivable. It is impossible to know what will happen in Iraq, however, I think the prospect of a protracted and bloody civil war is essentially inevitable. George and Dick will not be remembered kindly by history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pee Brain Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 [........ I for one have quit producing for the state.? I will no longer labor so that the government can confiscate the efforts of my labor and spend it willy nilly on the thousands of wasteful things in the budget. Not gonna work for da man eh?...............COOL!!!!!! Shall we presume you will not avail yourself of the state provided amenities? Roads?, Water?, Police?, etc. etc. ??? Ned, you know respect you, but would you ask the same question of a welfare recipient? even if we opt out, we are still taxed on passive income. i will not rant here as i tend to polarize, but i go into apts on section-8 and the tenants might pay $15/month of $1,100/mo rent for a 2br/1bth. could they be crowded into a 1br/1bth unit and pay 1/2 the rent? almost certainly, and they should. I SEE the newer cars in the lots - some have so much chrome & accessories that hey look like they went thru Pep Boys with a magnet. they have more electronics in the house than i do and it usually includes a VERY LARGE TV - like maybe 48" or so. i dont watch TV, so i dont pay $100/month for cable, but they DO! if they can pay for cable, they should be paying MORE for their part of the rent - IN FACT THEY SHOULD BE PAYING ALL OF THE RENT, WHATEVER IT IS! i have never spent more on a car than i can EARN in a week - i have never financed a depreciating asset. i have never spend more on a residence than i could gross in a year or two (i havent bought a residence in 20 yrs, and at that i occupy one of three units - i want a BIG house, but i have to create income first - SO I FRIGGIN GO W/O and im ALMOST 50!) my current residence is F&C after years of paying down mortgage, and i drive a 1994 ford taurus that i paid $4,000 for when it had 60,000 mi. it now has almost 165,000 and is worth maybe a grand at the most. my car before cost $1,500 - its was a used toyota cressida that i scraped when it reached 348,000 miles. my ex-wife was a real ball-buster at garage sales and swap meets, thats part of how we saved dough. the only new furniture i have purchased is a mattress over internet (great price) table & hutch on super discount when homeland went outta biz (it was dinged so i got it below what used furniture cost. i have a 19" TV to watch videos, i bought a used couch & chair at the local estate sale place; same with the bedroom furniture. BY MANY STANDARDS I AM VERY COMFORTABLE FINANCIALLY BUT IM CAREFUL WITH MY DOUGH AND DENY MYSELF THINGS ID LOVE TO HAVE NOW SO THAT THE FUTURE WILL BE EASIER - WHY IN THE HELL SHOULD I BE DEMONIZED AND TAXED SO SOME BASTARD CAN HAVE SUBSIDIZED EVERYTHING. I AM VERY NEAR CUTTING BACK TO PT WORK - THERE IS PLENTY OF WORK, ITS JUST THAT AFTER A CERTAIN POINT IM A FRIGGING DRONE FOR THE WELFARE STATE. The people on this board that have risked (perhaps "evrything") to start and maintain a business proivide the jobs for others to survive. when you take away conomic incentive, you will see the result. we will see an investor class that spends more on accountancy than taxes, and they will deal in capital that will create far less jobs, because much of the capital will flow where it is treated well, and more & more that is not the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pee Brain Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 Along the lines of Hunters post about James Madisons wise musings. Riddle me this-and leave all politics and Ideology out of your answer. Why?? would any President who thrust his Country into an unjustified war, who took a hard won surplus and turned it into a deficit the size of which the world has never seen, who has turned Civil Liberties on its head, who has cut taxes as the size of the Government and the deficit has exploded (pouring Gasoline on the Fire) who uses terror and torture, why oh WHY would that man deserve re-election-WHY? The election is going to be close when it should be a landslide for anybody but him-WHY?? what can his supporters point too-Riddle me that-I'd like to know! word! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 Bolting for Bush By EDWARD I. KOCH I am a lifelong Democrat. I was elected to New York's City Council, Congress and three terms as mayor of New York City on the Democratic Party line. I believe in the values of the Democratic Party as articulated by Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and by Senators Hubert Humphrey, Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Our philosophy is: "If you need a helping hand, we will provide it." The Republican Party's philosophy, on the other hand, can be summed up as: "If I made it on my own, you will have to do the same." Nevertheless, I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism. rest of article here http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.09/oped1.html Democrats for Bush http://democrats4bush.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 REASONS TO REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH Although President George W. Bush has disappointed conservatives on several issues, there have been some bright spots as well. For example, President Bush: - Signed into law two large income tax cuts, one of which was the largest such tax cut in our history, and he?s fighting to make the tax cuts permanent. - Reduced the income tax rate on low-incomes families, reducing the lowest income tax rate from 15 percent to 10 percent. - Signed a bill banning partial-birth abortion. - Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRAs from $500 to $2,000 per child. - Authorized faith-based charities to receive federal funds. - Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals. - Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. - Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers. - Increased spending for the Department of Veterans Affairs. - Liberated the people of Iraq and presided over the capture of Iraq?s brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. - Deposed the murderous Taliban regime in Afghanistan. - Signed anti-terrorism legislation that gives federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies the same tools that law enforcement agencies are allowed to use in Mafia and drug cases. - Reversed Bill Clinton's move to strike Ronald Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy. - By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act. - Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals. - Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. - Supports the Defense of Marriage Act, and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman. - Signed legislation that requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. - Has appointed numerous outstanding conservative judges to the federal judiciary. - Withdrew the U.S. from the courrupt International Criminal Court. - Withdrew the U.S. from the anti-American U.N. Human Rights Commission. - Refused access to U.N. ?election inspectors? in the 2002 elections. (The U.N. ?inspectors? wanted to ?monitor? our elections.) - Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds. - Approved Interior Secretary Gale Norton?s plan to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida, in the hope of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. - Abandoned the questionable tradition of seeking recommendations from the left-wing American Bar Association for federal judicial appointments. - Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. - Pushed through three raises for our military, increasing military pay by more than $1 billion a year. - Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ. - Has prohibited the placing of U.S. troops under U.N. command. - Killed the old US-Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses. - Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims. - Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. (HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 Where we are at this week http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush%20Ker...undamentals.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madame Wrecked Him Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 i will not rant here as i tend to polarize LOL PB I think that does count as a bit of a rant. Nevermind, you didn't polarize me and I do pretty much agree with your thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfield 8 Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 I have a large problem with poor bashing. And I can't believe any of you actually believe this propaganda about the lazy poor. For the most part they work three jobs at once and go into debt to pay basic bills. There will always be those who try to get something for nothing and they are the minority. I say again. Crime and poverty both went down in the '90's full employment. Unemployment breeds hopelessness and a whole buffet of social ills. And it all begins and ends with education. The relative health, safety and peacefullness of European societies can be largely attributed to excellent education for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madame Wrecked Him Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 REASONS TO REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH Interesting, Sled, to see a summary of Bush's "accomplishments". Interesting too, because all of that anti-abortion legislation is the one of the main reasons why I wouldn't be voting for Bush, if I were an American. Doesn't it just show how we can have our differences. It's a pity the list doesn't include additional support for sex-ed and other family planning programmes instead. Maybe I shouldn't be writing this though, because I don't want to get into an abortion debate on such a fine afternoon when I'd rather be enjoying the outdoors, and this really is such a can of worms. Edit: From all I've seen about abstinence programmes, they don't cut it in my books in terms of coming close to providing appropriate family planning options for most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The brown one Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 OK Sled, which propaganda site did that little list come from? Bearing Hunter's James Madison quote in mind,everything that Bush has "done" is negated by his single act of starting an illegal war.I'm sure that others more literate and eloquent than myself can take every "deed" as posted in that list and show that (almost) all are self-serving to either Bush himself or the corporate elite that hired him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 REASONS TO REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH - Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. So that explains Cheney's recent outburst on the Senate floor then when he told Patrick Leahey: "Go Fornicate Yourself!" All part of that Abstinence Education program. Very Important...while ROME BURNS!!! $33 million to tell kids to jack off...perfect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatbubble Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 "Terrorism is a contagious infection. Enemy nations may raise hypocritical protests against our measures against the insurgents and cry crocodile tears, but that will not stop us from doing that which is necessary. America, in any event, has no intention of bowing before this threat, rather intends to take the most radical measures in good time.... My firm conviction is that we cannot overcome the terrorist danger unless we use equivalent, though not identical, methods. The American people face the gravest demand of the War on Terror, namely of finding the determination to use all our resources to protect everything we have and everything we will gain in the future. Total war is the demand of the hour....The danger facing us is enormous. The efforts we take to meet it must be just as enormous. The time has come to remove the gloves and use our fists. We can no longer make only partial use of the war potential at home and throughout the Middle East. We must use our full resources, as quickly and thoroughly as it is organizationally and practically possible. Unnecessary concern is wholly out of place. The future of America hangs on our success in the Middle East. We are ready to defend it. The American people are shedding their most valuable blood in this battle. The rest of Europe should at least work to support us. There are voices in Europe that have already realized this. Others still resist. That cannot influence us. If danger faced them alone, we could view their reluctance as literary nonsense. But the danger is to us all, and we must all do our share. Those who today do not understand that will thank us tomorrow on bended knees that we courageously and firmly took on the task." -Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 18 February 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.