What we need to focus on ...

[BobcatBenny]

... Secession instead of Recession.

That is all. Over and out. ;)

[sinton66]

If you have your own President, you don't need a Governor.:D Rino would have to go find an honest job.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by sinton66
If you have your own President, you don't need a Governor.:D Rino would have to go find an honest job.
:clap: :clap: :iagree: :2thumbsup

I think Rick's job has gone to his head! I already knew that and didn't vote for him. From the beginning there was always something about the man I didn't trust.

[BobcatBenny]

Certainly the Ricster is pandering. His actions have reduced his popularity so much, someone burnt his house down. :(

But I take it back ... Recession is the correct Term.

Texas should recede or lead the recession in defense of ... or the return to the Constitution.

What is probably the truth, the Union was technically disolved when the Federal Government overstepped its authority as outlined/granted in Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps the funniest or oddest thing is ... some Russian intelligence analysts have realized this fact, but we Americans refuse to open our eyes to reality. The Russians are speculating and trying to figure out when the Americans will actually realize it.

Texans and Americans do not need Secession ... we need Constitutional Recession!

Texas should lead the way and become "the" or "a" United State again. :thinking:

[bullfrog_alumni_02]

as a soldier the idea that the union could, should, will, or has already fallen apart is extremely scary to me. i would like it very much if this were resolved in a peaceful manner. its like walking a tight rope while drunk and blindfolded though with no balance bar. i really hope that this thing can be traversed without incident and we all make it over safely.

[Farmersfan]

I 100% support the constitution. (or at least the original intent of it). but just for the sake of arguement, how have we as a society moved away from the constitution?????????
Or are you advocating Texas becoming independant based on YOUR subjective interpretation of the Constitution?

[bullfrog_alumni_02]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I 100% support the constitution. (or at least the original intent of it). but just for the sake of arguement, how have we as a society moved away from the constitution?????????
Or are you advocating Texas becoming independant based on YOUR subjective interpretation of the Constitution? i think what he is getting at is that there are things that we as Americans do and that our gov't does that the founding fathers would not have done if they were in out shoes. however, there are many things that have been established since then that i am without a doubt certain of that were the right thing to do. for instance: ending slavery in the U.S., women's rights, civil rights, etc. these things were never put into the initial constitution and were the right thing to do. over all, i feel as if society in general has taken a "what have you done for me lately" approach to politics. its no longer appropriate for our gov't leaders to ask us as a people to voluntarily forgo certain things we take for granted. we as a people need to have initiative and help out to provide for the common welfare of our neighbors instead of taking everything. if everyone takes everything then there will be even less to go around. more over, there will be nothing left to help those who really need it (i.e. the sick, homeless, the elderly...the list could truly go on and on.) i would hate for our country to fall apart on account of poor management. as the constitution states: if the governing body can no longer provide for the common defense, welfare, (and something else) then the people have the right to remove that body and install on that can. as stated earlier, its not the people in charge whom i question (i kind of have to follow whatever they say) but rather the people who put them there. (again, im sorry if i have crossed the line with this post. if i have i will change it so that it wont interfere with the rules of the site)

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I 100% support the constitution. (or at least the original intent of it). but just for the sake of arguement, how have we as a society moved away from the constitution?????????
Or are you advocating Texas becoming independant based on YOUR subjective interpretation of the Constitution?

No they are knee jerking over reactors.. who are complaining about NOTHING.. I'm willing to bet they couldn't even pin point what they are complaining about.. The guy they didn't want to get elected got elected as president so people are throwing a hissy fit

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by Keith7
No they are knee jerking over reactors.. who are complaining about NOTHING.. I'm willing to bet they couldn't even pin point what they are complaining about.. The guy they didn't want to get elected got elected as president so people are throwing a hissy fit
Relax ... the situation we as Americans or former Americans (if I am correct) are in is not this President's fault or even the last President's fault. This has been building for years.

It is simple erosion. Little by little. Mistake compounding mistake. Etc. etc.

Is there anyone here that thought they would ever see the Soviet Union collapse?

Or ... other amazing collapses? Such as the World Trade Center buildings collapsing in a matter of moments?

Yet we know throughout history that all governments have collapsed and eventually fail. Every single one without exception.

It is either ingnorance or arrogance that would prevent us from staying alert and recognizing the deterioration of this one.

I am allowed my perspective and I am not complaining ... I simply feel the heat.

If I am wrong great! I am wrong often. Just ask my wife! ;)

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Keith7
No they are knee jerking over reactors.. who are complaining about NOTHING.. I'm willing to bet they couldn't even pin point what they are complaining about.. The guy they didn't want to get elected got elected as president so people are throwing a hissy fit


I also threw a hissy fit. As would you if you honestly looked at who we put in office. But that is another thread. I was simply making the statement that the constitution is meant to represent the will of the people and if the people want it to be changed then it should be changed. I get real tired of people throwing the constitution up in the face of every issue they have with government. The constitution grants a lot of freedoms but it doesn't grant unlimited or unstructured freedoms. We cannot live in a society of this many people if everyone thinks they have all the freedoms that the constitution speaks of. The left frequently takes a very liberal translation of the constitution to get their agendas passed but that isn't any worse than the right taking a very litteral translation of the same document. We have to find a happy medium or we will be in trouble here pretty quick. Just my opinion......

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Relax ... the situation we as Americans or former Americans (if I am correct) are in is not this President's fault or even the last President's fault. This has been building for years.

It is simple erosion. Little by little. Mistake compounding mistake. Etc. etc.

Is there anyone here that thought they would ever see the Soviet Union collapse?

Or ... other amazing collapses? Such as the World Trade Center buildings collapsing in a matter of moments?

Yet we know throughout history that all governments have collapsed and eventually fail. Every single one without exception.

It is either ingnorance or arrogance that would prevent us from staying alert and recognizing the deterioration of this one.

I am allowed my perspective and I am not complaining ... I simply feel the heat.

If I am wrong great! I am wrong often. Just ask my wife! ;)


I would be interested in your opinions of where we have eroded to the point of concern? I feel the same way about a whole lot of areas of our society but very few of them are directly related to the constitution. I personally think we are headed down a slippery slope of self entitlement and liberal agendas. The recent election only makes that fear even more real.....
But where have we gone astray in your mind?

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I would be interested in your opinions of where we have eroded to the point of concern? I feel the same way about a whole lot of areas of our society but very few of them are directly related to the constitution. I personally think we are headed down a slippery slope of self entitlement and liberal agendas. The recent election only makes that fear even more real.....
But where have we gone astray in your mind?
I personally think that the Constitution is violated on a more an more frequent basis. In many cases there are violations that happen ... are never corrected or prosecuted ... so they repeat on a more and more frequent basis.

But we could easily start with the United Nations.

Is there any part of our participation in what the United Nations has become that is not a violation of the authority of, or attack on the Constitution?

I wonder if any of our veterans on this board would have liked to of been handed over to serve the UN military? If any of you did, I personally apologize on behalf of our former Constitutional country for violating your unalienable rights. :(

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I also threw a hissy fit. As would you if you honestly looked at who we put in office. But that is another thread. I was simply making the statement that the constitution is meant to represent the will of the people and if the people want it to be changed then it should be changed. I get real tired of people throwing the constitution up in the face of every issue they have with government. The constitution grants a lot of freedoms but it doesn't grant unlimited or unstructured freedoms. We cannot live in a society of this many people if everyone thinks they have all the freedoms that the constitution speaks of. The left frequently takes a very liberal translation of the constitution to get their agendas passed but that isn't any worse than the right taking a very litteral translation of the same document. We have to find a happy medium or we will be in trouble here pretty quick. Just my opinion......

I think I agree with you. Our major downfall may be due to our own behaviorial problems. Too many "me firsters" seem to believe the government should have no control over them, just over criminals. Society can only exist when we observe the rights of others and not just our own. The current climate is extremely divisive over "constitutional"rights. After all, we do have to live together, and that requires control over individual freedom. I don't advocate that the government can solve all problems, just that it is necessary to control us to a point of civility.

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I think I agree with you. Our major downfall may be due to our own behaviorial problems. Too many "me firsters" seem to believe the government should have no control over them, just over criminals. Society can only exist when we observe the rights of others and not just our own. The current climate is extremely divisive over "constitutional"rights. After all, we do have to live together, and that requires control over individual freedom. I don't advocate that the government can solve all problems, just that it is necessary to control us to a point of civility.
Well, I would agree with you on the "me first" attitude and infringing on rights concept.

Where I think we diverge is on the concept of the level at which authority and governance should occur and when legislation is made by what bounds of authority is it being empowered or restricted. Basically who is legislating and by what authoritative limits is this legislation taking place?

For example. IMO. The Federal representatives of California should not have any significant legislative power or governance over my life in Texas. I believe each and every state is entitled to a Republican form of government and it is actually the duty of the Federal government to protect my state from the power of the other states and foreign countries.

And ... we have also diverged on the concept of rights, freedom and regulation.

Control over any type of freedom (individual or collective) is not "freedom". Freedom, by definition, is exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

When people loose sight or misconstrue the concept of "Freedom" then they are easily enslaved.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You and I are not "Permitted" to have a gun. We are "Free" to have a gun. Huge difference! ;)

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Well, I would agree with you on the "me first" attitude and infringing on rights concept.

Where I think we diverge is on the concept of the level at which authority and governance should occur and when legislation is made by what bounds of authority is it being empowered or restricted. Basically who is legislating and by what authoritative limits is this legislation taking place?

For example. IMO. The Federal representatives of California should not have any significant legislative power or governance over my life in Texas. I believe each and every state is entitled to a Republican form of government and it is actually the duty of the Federal government to protect my state from the power of the other states and foreign countries.

And ... we have also diverged on the concept of rights, freedom and regulation.

Control over any type of freedom (individual or collective) is not "freedom". Freedom, by definition, is exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

When people loose sight or misconstrue the concept of "Freedom" then they are easily enslaved.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You and I are not "Permitted" to have a gun. We are "Free" to have a gun. Huge difference! ;)

Well, well. The start of a good discussion.

"Basically who is legislating and by what authoritative limits is this legislation taking place?"
Last time I checked, we are governed by an elected Congress and President operating under our constitution. Has that changed? I believe under our constitution, when it comes to elections, the majority wins. If you don't agree, feel free to complain, but unless you intend some type of resistance, you best learn to live with it.

"I believe each and every state is entitled to a Republican form of government and it is actually the duty of the Federal government to protect my state from the power of the other states and foreign countries."
Each state is a member of The United States. Yes, there are indeed rights reserved to states but that does not mean states are independent from their obligations under our federal constitution. I cannot reason exactly what you are advocating when you say every state is entitled to a Republican form of government. Total independence from federal control? I think the southern states lost that argument about 144 years ago.

"Control over any type of freedom (individual or collective) is not "freedom". Freedom, by definition, is exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc."
I hardly know where to start. Should every individual be afforded total freedom to do as one pleases, regardless of the rights of others? That would be anarchy at its worst. When we formed a collective government we of necessity gave up some "freedoms" in order to mutually protect ourselves from foreign countries as well as one another. That is why we agreed to live under the rule of law. A good example where that agreement failed or never was would be Somalia.

"You and I are not "Permitted" to have a gun. We are "Free" to have a gun. Huge difference! "
That is an argument of semantics, really not worth arguing. We probably would not have guns or at least be allowed to have them if we did not have the Bill of Rights. And I think that says it very well, that it is a right. Should there be some control? I don't think either of us would like any private citizen to have the right to have a military tank, a nuclear weapon, an RPG or any other of many I could name.

I believe most people, including you and I realize there must be limits. How far control goes may be a matter of who is currently in power, but I am certain if control goes too far, the majority will rise up and put some folks in office who will restore those "rights".
I beleive in our system of government. I may not always agree with the administration, but it's more right than wrong and mistakes are correctable.

[PPHSfan]

...I don't think either of us would like any private citizen to have the right to have a military tank, a nuclear weapon, an RPG or any other of many I could name.

I for one, would rather meet up with a tank driving, rpg toting, law abiding citizen, than meet up with a felonious sling-shot wielder any day of the week.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
I for one, would rather meet up with a tank driving, rpg toting, law abiding citizen, than meet up with a felonious sling-shot wielder any day of the week. I doubt either is very likely. Law abiding citizens don't have tanks or rpg's, and the idea of a felon with a slingshot brings laughter upon me! :D

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Well, well. The start of a good discussion.

"Basically who is legislating and by what authoritative limits is this legislation taking place?"
Last time I checked, we are governed by an elected Congress and President operating under our constitution. Has that changed? I believe under our constitution, when it comes to elections, the majority wins. If you don't agree, feel free to complain, but unless you intend some type of resistance, you best learn to live with it.

"I believe each and every state is entitled to a Republican form of government and it is actually the duty of the Federal government to protect my state from the power of the other states and foreign countries."
Each state is a member of The United States. Yes, there are indeed rights reserved to states but that does not mean states are independent from their obligations under our federal constitution. I cannot reason exactly what you are advocating when you say every state is entitled to a Republican form of government. Total independence from federal control? I think the southern states lost that argument about 144 years ago.

"Control over any type of freedom (individual or collective) is not "freedom". Freedom, by definition, is exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc."
I hardly know where to start. Should every individual be afforded total freedom to do as one pleases, regardless of the rights of others? That would be anarchy at its worst. When we formed a collective government we of necessity gave up some "freedoms" in order to mutually protect ourselves from foreign countries as well as one another. That is why we agreed to live under the rule of law. A good example where that agreement failed or never was would be Somalia.

"You and I are not "Permitted" to have a gun. We are "Free" to have a gun. Huge difference! "
That is an argument of semantics, really not worth arguing. We probably would not have guns or at least be allowed to have them if we did not have the Bill of Rights. And I think that says it very well, that it is a right. Should there be some control? I don't think either of us would like any private citizen to have the right to have a military tank, a nuclear weapon, an RPG or any other of many I could name.

I believe most people, including you and I realize there must be limits. How far control goes may be a matter of who is currently in power, but I am certain if control goes too far, the majority will rise up and put some folks in office who will restore those "rights".
I beleive in our system of government. I may not always agree with the administration, but it's more right than wrong and mistakes are correctable.
Well, this is supposed to be a Republic. It is not the majority wins. Everyone is protected from the government and the majority. Up to the point that Constitution has been cast aside. Is this your concession that the protections of the Constitution have been cast aside and you are agreeing it is in all essences dissolved? ;)

And ... my comments about the States being a Republic is paraphrasing directly from the Constitution. If this was settled 144 years ago in an answer other than that, then perhaps the Constitution was actually dissolved 144 years ago? :thinking:

"Should every individual be afforded total freedom to do as one pleases, regardless of the rights of others?"

Freedom is either a freedom or it is not. That simple. If I am free to own a gun. My ownership of a gun, by definition, cannot be an infringement of the rights of others. If I am free to own land, my ownership of a piece of property is never an infringement on the rights of others. I am free to travel, and my travel is never an infringement on the rights of others.

It is never anarchy. It is freedom.

We do not have freedom in all areas, but where there is freedom, it must be unregulated and not infringed.

I have freedom of speech. But, not on this forum. It is private, not public. It is regulated and has rules and I can be censored. This is not a free place.

But if this were a government or publicly funded forum, basically a public place, then my speech is and should be free, unhindered and uncensored. Period. Can order be maintained without regulating my speech? Absolutely. There can be rules of order, but not rules limiting free speech. Order can be maintained without limiting my freedom of speech.

What about slander? Free speech is limited because, for example, I am not allowed to slander against you. Right? Nope, not in my opinion ... think about it.

Then, when it comes to your next point about firearms.

"Should there be some control? I don't think either of us would like any private citizen to have the right to have a military tank, a nuclear weapon, an RPG or any other of many I could name."

I disagree. I do not have a problem with any citizen having any of those items. Particulary my citizen neighbors. I would be happy for my citizen neighbors to have any of those items. Why? Because I love my neighbors and they love me. (Hard to believe ... I know. :eek: )

Note: I am intentionally using the term citizen.

I believe most people, including you and I realize there must be limits.

Yes, and limits must start on government first and foremost. Governements should never be free or unregulated.

Citizens on the other hand should have many freedoms and I believe those freedoms should not be infringed.

The fact that they have been infringed at all is that slippery slope on which we now find ourselves.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Well, this is supposed to be a Republic. It is not the majority wins. Everyone is protected from the government and the majority. Up to the point that Constitution has been cast aside. Is this your concession that the protections of the Constitution have been cast aside and you are agreeing it is in all essences dissolved? ;)

And ... my comments about the States being a Republic is paraphrasing directly from the Constitution. If this was settled 144 years ago in an answer other than that, then perhaps the Constitution was actually dissolved 144 years ago? :thinking:

"Should every individual be afforded total freedom to do as one pleases, regardless of the rights of others?"

Freedom is either a freedom or it is not. That simple. If I am free to own a gun. My ownership of a gun, by definition, cannot be an infringement of the rights of others. If I am free to own land, my ownership of a piece of property is never an infringement on the rights of others. I am free to travel, and my travel is never an infringement on the rights of others.

It is never anarchy. It is freedom.

We do not have freedom in all areas, but where there is freedom, it must be unregulated and not infringed.

I have freedom of speech. But, not on this forum. It is private, not public. It is regulated and has rules and I can be censored. This is not a free place.

But if this were a government or publicly funded forum, basically a public place, then my speech is and should be free, unhindered and uncensored. Period. Can order be maintained without regulating my speech? Absolutely. There can be rules of order, but not rules limiting free speech. Order can be maintained without limiting my freedom of speech.

What about slander? Free speech is limited because, for example, I am not allowed to slander against you. Right? Nope, not in my opinion ... think about it.

Then, when it comes to your next point about firearms.

"Should there be some control? I don't think either of us would like any private citizen to have the right to have a military tank, a nuclear weapon, an RPG or any other of many I could name."

I disagree. I do not have a problem with any citizen having any of those items. Particulary my citizen neighbors. I would be happy for my citizen neighbors to have any of those items. Why? Because I love my neighbors and they love me. (Hard to believe ... I know. :eek: )

Note: I am intentionally using the term citizen.

I believe most people, including you and I realize there must be limits.

Yes, and limits must start on government first and foremost. Governements should never be free or unregulated.

Citizens on the other hand should have many freedoms and I believe those freedoms should not be infringed.

The fact that they have been infringed at all is that slippery slope on which we now find ourselves.



All very good points. But you still have not said HOW these freedoms have been infringed on. The constitution is subject to interpretation and based on the interpretation of some, many laws have been passed that others think infringes on their rights. There can be NO absolutes in a society as densely populated as this one. The Constitution lists a "Bill of Rights" to protect individual freedoms of the citizens of this country. It then goes on to show what is requried to change or amend what it previously listed. If 2/3s vote of the houses of congress deem it appropriate then the constitution can legally be amended.
The Bill Of Rights isn't written in stone and was never intended to be permanent. Otherwise they would have never built in requirements for changing it. They knew the constitution had to grow and change in order to serve the needs of a ever changing society. Besides, many, many people opposed the Bill of Rights when it was originally added to the constitution. They believed that expressing a list of specific rights would by association weaken one's claim on un-expressed rights. And they were correct. It is now mainstream in this country to set the Bill of Rights up as the authority of what rights we are granted. The constitution grants many, many more rights than just those listed in the B.O.R.s but because they aren't specifically listed they tend to be ignored. But that's a different topic.....

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Yes, and limits must start on government first and foremost. Governements should never be free or unregulated.


This is where most of our efforts should be spent. We need a accountability law in place to force our representatives to actually submit to our scrutiny and be held accountable for it. The downfall of this country will come from Canidates telling the people what they want to hear and then doing the opposite when they get elected. That is not proper representation. We need a commitee of unbiased observers who have the power to bring a greiveance agaisnt even the President. If he promises to "never raise taxes" and breaks that promise then he is in breach of his representation and should be forced to address this and even removed from office. Truth in politics is the only thing that will save this country in the long run........

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
This is where most of our efforts should be spent. We need a accountability law in place to force our representatives to actually submit to our scrutiny and be held accountable for it. The downfall of this country will come from Canidates telling the people what they want to hear and then doing the opposite when they get elected. That is not proper representation. We need a commitee of unbiased observers who have the power to bring a greiveance agaisnt even the President. If he promises to "never raise taxes" and breaks that promise then he is in breach of his representation and should be forced to address this and even removed from office. Truth in politics is the only thing that will save this country in the long run........ [/B]
Hey, that's a pretty good idea! I like it! Let's start a movement to create such a body of watchdog citizens that will oversee those elected officials. The only thing is those elected officials they will oversee will not empower this watchdog committee to do anything, but they can't keep them from exposing the officials' lies. I, for one, am tired of hearing them lie about what they will do once elected. Of course, experience will tell you that they won't be able to do what they say they will do. One thing that irks me to no end is the fact that Congress is able to vote themselves a pay raise whenever they want to. That should be deemed unconstitutional, and should be changed. I also don't like the fact that any elected official who has served as a Congressman and doesn't get reelected gets full pay AFTER they are elected out of office. I'd like to see that changed, too.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by waterboy
I also don't like the fact that any elected official who has served as a Congressman and doesn't get reelected gets full pay AFTER they are elected out of office. I'd like to see that changed, too.

Waterboy, I don't believe this to be exactly correct. They actually do get full pay, but only after haveing served 26 full years. Any Congressman or Senator is eligible for retirement benefits (at a lower rate) after 5 years, but not 100% pay.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030825.htm Older article, but still correect.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm Abit more current, but from a more palatable source than proliberty.com

[waterboy]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Waterboy, I don't believe this to be exactly correct. They actually do get full pay, but only after haveing served 26 full years. Any Congressman or Senator is eligible for retirement benefits (at a lower rate) after 5 years, but not 100% pay.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030825.htm Older article, but still correect.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm Abit more current, but from a more palatable source than proliberty.com
:doh: Oh, thanks!:doh: Thanks for pointing that out! I guess that was just a myth. If I understand correctly, they have two retirement plans that work separately from each other, and when they reach retirement age they add up to be their full salary, with cost of living increases included. Not a bad deal.....maybe I can become a Congressman!;)

Seriously, though, I still don't like the idea that they can vote for their own pay raises. Their salaries are paid with our tax dollars, right? Shouldn't we have the say as to who, and when, they get pay raises? It's pretty obvious that our elected officials cannot be trusted!

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by waterboy
:doh: Oh, thanks!:doh: Thanks for pointing that out! I guess that was just a myth. If I understand correctly, they have two retirement plans that work separately from each other, and when they reach retirement age they add up to be their full salary, with cost of living increases included. Not a bad deal.....maybe I can become a Congressman!;)

Seriously, though, I still don't like the idea that they can vote for their own pay raises. Their salaries are paid with our tax dollars, right? Shouldn't we have the say as to who, and when, they get pay raises? It's pretty obvious that our elected officials cannot be trusted!

I'm trying to think of any other job that offers a retirement package which includes 100% of your pay. Even the military is only 50% at 20 years and 75% at 30 years. I don't believe the military gets to vote themselves a pay raise though. :)

I wonder who or what department came up with 100% pay in retirement. My guess is that it was some department that wanted to insure their own retirement!!!

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
All very good points. But you still have not said HOW these freedoms have been infringed on. The constitution is subject to interpretation and based on the interpretation of some, many laws have been passed that others think infringes on their rights. There can be NO absolutes in a society as densely populated as this one. The Constitution lists a "Bill of Rights" to protect individual freedoms of the citizens of this country. It then goes on to show what is requried to change or amend what it previously listed. If 2/3s vote of the houses of congress deem it appropriate then the constitution can legally be amended.
The Bill Of Rights isn't written in stone and was never intended to be permanent. Otherwise they would have never built in requirements for changing it. They knew the constitution had to grow and change in order to serve the needs of a ever changing society. Besides, many, many people opposed the Bill of Rights when it was originally added to the constitution. They believed that expressing a list of specific rights would by association weaken one's claim on un-expressed rights. And they were correct. It is now mainstream in this country to set the Bill of Rights up as the authority of what rights we are granted. The constitution grants many, many more rights than just those listed in the B.O.R.s but because they aren't specifically listed they tend to be ignored. But that's a different topic.....
Certainly things can change ... even the Constitution. But that is regulated by the Constitution itself.

Re-defining the terms used in the Constitution and then using the new definitions to re-interpret the meanings is a tool of the subversive anti-freedom power mongers.

If you want to see the Constitution be trampled on and dissolved, watch when Congress passes or what ever it is they have to do with the 1982 Law of the Sea by the United Nations. I bet it gets passed into or signed into law, either by treaty or whatever other means. If I understand this correctly U.S. companies will be forced to start paying royalties (taxes) to the UN participants, for oil and mineral products that come from U.S. territorial waters and the High (Free) Seas.

The fact that there is not an out cry of the highest order coming from the citizens of this country over Constitutional accountability is jaw dropping to say the least.

When the citizens of the US adopted a "fix it at any expense" attitude. The anti-freedom power mongers took that as their queue to enslave us all by removing and eliminating the freedoms we have.

I do like your point on the very existence of the Bill of Rights. It does also have the ability to put blinders on our ability to see all the freedoms we actually should claim.

[BEAST]

I agree with points made by everyone who has been posting on this topic. The problem as I see it is this, very few are the number of Americans who TRULY give a damn. Sure, everybody likes to pitch a fit and say this or that, but at the end of the day, said person is going to vote for the same party they always have voted for. Thats both Republicans and Democrats.

Then there lies the biggest problem. The Dems are only doing what helps them, same for the Reps, therefore neither is doing solely what is best for AMERICA. Then that leads us back to the people, they dont give a damn. If they did, things would change.

God Help Us!!!!!




BEAST

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BEAST
I agree with points made by everyone who has been posting on this topic. The problem as I see it is this, very few are the number of Americans who TRULY give a damn. Sure, everybody likes to pitch a fit and say this or that, but at the end of the day, said person is going to vote for the same party they always have voted for. Thats both Republicans and Democrats.

Then there lies the biggest problem. The Dems are only doing what helps them, same for the Reps, therefore neither is doing solely what is best for AMERICA. Then that leads us back to the people, they dont give a damn. If they did, things would change.

God Help Us!!!!!




BEAST



I think most people feel like they are helpless to act. Most Americans feel like they don't really have a voice. That is why these Tea Party events are so encouraging to me. At least something might actually bring Americans together. Even if it does turn into a current admin bashing party at least people are starting to get involved and thinking.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I think most people feel like they are helpless to act. Most Americans feel like they don't really have a voice. That is why these Tea Party events are so encouraging to me. At least something might actually bring Americans together. Even if it does turn into a current admin bashing party at least people are starting to get involved and thinking.

Know what you are voting for and why you are voting for it. ;)

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I think most people feel like they are helpless to act. Most Americans feel like they don't really have a voice. That is why these Tea Party events are so encouraging to me. At least something might actually bring Americans together. Even if it does turn into a current admin bashing party at least people are starting to get involved and thinking.

As long as it turns in a "bashing party" somewhere else other than HERE, then I have done my job!!:D :D

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Certainly things can change ... even the Constitution. But that is regulated by the Constitution itself.

Re-defining the terms used in the Constitution and then using the new definitions to re-interpret the meanings is a tool of the subversive anti-freedom power mongers.

If you want to see the Constitution be trampled on and dissolved, watch when Congress passes or what ever it is they have to do with the 1982 Law of the Sea by the United Nations. I bet it gets passed into or signed into law, either by treaty or whatever other means. If I understand this correctly U.S. companies will be forced to start paying royalties (taxes) to the UN participants, for oil and mineral products that come from U.S. territorial waters and the High (Free) Seas.

The fact that there is not an out cry of the highest order coming from the citizens of this country over Constitutional accountability is jaw dropping to say the least.

When the citizens of the US adopted a "fix it at any expense" attitude. The anti-freedom power mongers took that as their queue to enslave us all by removing and eliminating the freedoms we have.

I do like your point on the very existence of the Bill of Rights. It does also have the ability to put blinders on our ability to see all the freedoms we actually should claim.


I don't understand your point about this Law of the Sea. It has been in place for a while now with 157 countries having signed it. It applies to ALL countries and not just the US. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.
You have used the term "Anti-freedom power mongers" on several occasions and even stated that they wanted to "Enslave us"!!! All this does is lend creedence to the claims of fear mongoring and over reacting by the left. If the left actually passed laws that killed freedom and "enslaved" us, wouldn't they also be enslaved themselves? I see a lot wrong with the policies of the left but I think they honestly believe they are doing what is correct for our country. Once they see they are wrong then it would behoove them to change directions because they will suffer the same fate we all suffer. But to assert they are intentionally trying to do wrong for the country is nonsense.......We are all Americans first, Texans second and then right or left wing a distant third.

I say let's all go fishing and be done with this politics thing.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
As long as it turns in a "bashing party" somewhere else other than HERE, then I have done my job!!:D :D



I think keeping us all in line is more of a hobby for you than a job!:D :D

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I don't understand your point about this Law of the Sea. It has been in place for a while now with 157 countries having signed it. It applies to ALL countries and not just the US. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.
You have used the term "Anti-freedom power mongers" on several occasions and even stated that they wanted to "Enslave us"!!! All this does is lend creedence to the claims of fear mongoring and over reacting by the left. If the left actually passed laws that killed freedom and "enslaved" us, wouldn't they also be enslaved themselves? I see a lot wrong with the policies of the left but I think they honestly believe they are doing what is correct for our country. Once they see they are wrong then it would behoove them to change directions because they will suffer the same fate we all suffer. But to assert they are intentionally trying to do wrong for the country is nonsense.......We are all Americans first, Texans second and then right or left wing a distant third.

I say let's all go fishing and be done with this politics thing.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I think keeping us all in line is more of a hobby for you than a job!:D :D

Well...since I don't get paid, I guess so!!

Although........since I am usually AT work when I am doing this, I guess I am getting paid, for doing what I shouldn't be doing!!:) :eek:



But....."I have done my job" sounds so much better than, "I have done my hobby!!"
:D

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Well...since I don't get paid, I guess so!!

Although........since I am usually AT work when I am doing this, I guess I am getting paid, for doing what I shouldn't be doing!!:) :eek:



But....."I have done my job" sounds so much better than, "I have done my hobby!!"
:D



Did you say you have done your hubby?????? :devil: :devil: :eek:

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Did you say you have done your hubby?????? :devil: :devil: :eek:

NOOO!!! I didn't say that!!

But....that goes without saying too!!:p

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I don't understand your point about this Law of the Sea. It has been in place for a while now with 157 countries having signed it. It applies to ALL countries and not just the US. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.
You have used the term "Anti-freedom power mongers" on several occasions and even stated that they wanted to "Enslave us"!!! All this does is lend creedence to the claims of fear mongoring and over reacting by the left. If the left actually passed laws that killed freedom and "enslaved" us, wouldn't they also be enslaved themselves? I see a lot wrong with the policies of the left but I think they honestly believe they are doing what is correct for our country. Once they see they are wrong then it would behoove them to change directions because they will suffer the same fate we all suffer. But to assert they are intentionally trying to do wrong for the country is nonsense.......We are all Americans first, Texans second and then right or left wing a distant third.

I say let's all go fishing and be done with this politics thing.
Well, I see your point with my choice of words. But they are just the words I chose to use.

The eroding of our freedom and the trampling of Constitution is not a left or right issue in my opinion.

When this discussion started, other than mentioning the Governor of Texas, who happens to claim to be a Republican, this discussion has little to do with politics and more to do with power.

There are certainly many politicians that are just ignorant and are being herded with the rest of us.

My point of the Law of the Sea issue, is about giving a non-constitutional organization, such as the UN any governance or regulating authority over this supposed Nation. As well intentioned as the UN's Law of the Sea may appear, it would be a huge mistake to willingly give an inch of US sovereignty to the UN.

You are free to see otherwise. But that freedom to see otherwise and have a dissenting viewpoint is quickly being eroded away.

And.. we can all go fishing as long as we have purchased our UN issued fishing licenses. ;)

[BEAST]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Well, I see your point with my choice of words. But they are just the words I chose to use.

The eroding of our freedom and the trampling of Constitution is not a left or right issue in my opinion.

When this discussion started, other than mentioning the Governor of Texas, who happens to claim to be a Republican, this discussion has little to do with politics and more to do with power.

There are certainly many politicians that are just ignorant and are being herded with the rest of us.

My point of the Law of the Sea issue, is about giving a non-constitutional organization, such as the UN any governance or regulating authority over this supposed Nation. As well intentioned as the UN's Law of the Sea may appear, it would be a huge mistake to willingly give an inch of US sovereignty to the UN.

You are free to see otherwise. But that freedom to see otherwise and have a dissenting viewpoint is quickly being eroded away.

And.. we can all go fishing as long as we have purchased our UN issued fishing licenses. ;)

I agree 100%. America should not give any part of our sovereignty to the UN. They UN cant do anything correctly. I have been in favor of The USA leaving the UN since 9-11-2001. I havent changed my stance on that. The UN would crumble without the US backing and everyone knows it. The plain truth of it is, none of these Nations are United. America and the UK along with Israel and Australia should form our own, and let the rest do without.




BEAST

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Know what you are voting for and why you are voting for it. ;) Unfortunately that didn't happen in this past election (IMO). People were voting for a rock star, not a president. This was proven many times when people said they were voting for a guy based on his policies, yet they could not even name one of his policies.

Not only could people not name his policies, when they were presented with policies contrary to this person, they said they liked those ideas and policies. Many, many people had no idea who they were voting for in this past election.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Unfortunately that didn't happen in this past election (IMO). People were voting for a rock star, not a president. This was proven many times when people said they were voting for a guy based on his policies, yet they could not even name one of his policies.

Not only could people not name his policies, when they were presented with policies contrary to this person, they said they liked those ideas and policies. Many, many people had no idea who they were voting for in this past election.

Ohhh!! I just have a bad feeling this thread is gonna turn political QUICKLY!!

I didn't like any of the nominees this year!!

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Ohhh!! I just have a bad feeling this thread is gonna turn political QUICKLY!!

I didn't like any of the nominees this year!!
Well, it is just errosion. A well intentioned thread.

A well intentioned Constitution.

It all boils down to the liberties we take and hold dear.

You hold the power. Teach them an object lesson in heavy handed governance!! :p

If men who hold all authority are called dictators ... what would a female in a dictatorial role be called?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom

I didn't like any of the nominees this year!! Me either.:(

[sinfan75]

The only thing i'm worried about is the oil & gas industry is gonna be a thing of the past looong before this country is ready for it. Has anybody noticed there is no mention of oil & gas when the people in power talk about our energy future? I don't watch or read the news much but when I do it's all about green.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by sinfan75
The only thing i'm worried about is the oil & gas industry is gonna be a thing of the past looong before this country is ready for it. Has anybody noticed there is no mention of oil & gas when the people in power talk about our energy future? I don't watch or read the news much but when I do it's all about green. Green is a great goal, but don't be fooled into thinking that oil and gas will go away anytime soon. The technology is just not there to make going green a reality for a long, long time. Hopefully we'll get there, but it won't be anytime soon.

[sinton66]

60's hippie quote:
"If you aren't part of the solution. you're part of the problem!"

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by sinton66
60's hippie quote:
"If you aren't part of the solution. you're part of the problem!"
It doesn't get much more hippie than the 3ADL. A bunch of folks communing and getting high, in this case, on their opinions.

It is the hippie problem solving method! :)

All we need now, is a bit of nudity! RM? :eek: (ladies only ... please! :D)

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
It doesn't get much more hippie than the 3ADL. A bunch of folks communing and getting high, in this case, on their opinions.

It is the hippie problem solving method! :)

All we need now, is a bit of nudity! RM? :eek: (ladies only ... please! :D)

Benny, Benny! You've gone over to the dark side with that last comment!!!!!:p

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny


All we need now, is a bit of nudity! RM? :eek: (ladies only ... please! :D)

Sorry....but I really don't care to see any of our ladies nude!!:eek:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Sorry....but I really don't care to see any of our ladies nude!!:eek:



Well there goes my idea that all females are borderline Lesbians.
Thanks for killing that fantasy Mom! Wait! Mom and fantasy in the same sentence just seems wrong somehow.


:devil: :devil: :devil:

[BobcatBenny]

OK I am doing this for Ron.

And ... to get us back on track.

I can go on and on about the Constitution, but here is an interesting article. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4609.shtml

On an interesting tangent, there is mention of the verious Czars that have been created by the Federal Government.

Czar - an emperor or king.

And ... a quote from the Constitution.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Interpret that away!! :eek:

[sinfan75]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Green is a great goal, but don't be fooled into thinking that oil and gas will go away anytime soon. The technology is just not there to make going green a reality for a long, long time. Hopefully we'll get there, but it won't be anytime soon. Hey I'm all for a diversified energy policy but if the government don't start pushing to drill for our own oil, problems will occur. i've been in the oil & gas industry in some form or fashion since '78 and it ain't never been this bad. And that includes the early 80's. Usually things are blowin and goin this time of year but it's just really slow right now.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by sinfan75
Hey I'm all for a diversified energy policy but if the government don't start pushing to drill for our own oil, problems will occur. i've been in the oil & gas industry in some form or fashion since '78 and it ain't never been this bad. And that includes the early 80's. Usually things are blowin and goin this time of year but it's just really slow right now. I agree. Drill here now and research and develop for the future.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
OK I am doing this for Ron.

And ... to get us back on track.

I can go on and on about the Constitution, but here is an interesting article. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4609.shtml

On an interesting tangent, there is mention of the verious Czars that have been created by the Federal Government.

Czar - an emperor or king.

And ... a quote from the Constitution.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Interpret that away!! :eek:

Is Czar an actual working title? If it is, throw him in jail!

Interesting article. Surely it doesn't have a chance in .... of being passed. Or does it? We did see torture allowed after all.

And thanks for the plug, Benny!:inlove:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Is Czar an actual working title? If it is, throw him in jail! Here you go.

Climate Czar (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/12/15/eco.obamaenergyteam/)

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here you go.

Climate Czar (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/12/15/eco.obamaenergyteam/)

Sounds more like a working title to me. OK, he avoided jail time this time.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Sounds more like a working title to me. OK, he avoided jail time this time. Apparently some congressmen don't like the title czar either.

link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/17/obamas-czars-spark-concerns-lawmakers/)