User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 10:09:05 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Invictus, first of all, I don't sweat to the oldies in Florida. FYI, a deputy sheriff is a Constitutional officer. I am sworn in by an elected officer. If that is a leech, then so be it. But since you don't live in my county, thankfully, it ain't none of your damn business. And I can't help the fact that you didn't have the balls to go and defend your right to be obnoxious assholes. Me, I'll just keep on doing the good job, while you, and your ilk are constantly pissed off at life. stg, i may never ever agree with you about anything, but thanks for doing your job, whether it be at checkpoint charlie or south dade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 10:30:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Invictus, first of all, I don't sweat to the oldies in Florida. FYI, a deputy sheriff is a Constitutional officer. I am sworn in by an elected officer. If that is a leech, then so be it. But since you don't live in my county, thankfully, it ain't none of your damn business. And I can't help the fact that you didn't have the balls to go and defend your right to be obnoxious assholes. Me, I'll just keep on doing the good job, while you, and your ilk are constantly pissed off at life. FYI, the sheriff is not a Constitutional officer. Nowhere does it even use the word or the word constable, etc. This may however exist in your State Constitution and I recognize there needs to be some element of Constablery. Don't make statments you can not support. And I find your 'I did my spin in the military or as a LEO, you didn't or aren't, so you are a coward and you suck' attitude very elitist. You would be the first to tell a civilain to wait for your help. I guess you think you have better balls then most. Zaz |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 10:49:48 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: (my distaste for sr15s assertion that somehow we condon the deaths of the Firefighters withstanding) Give me a break. I never suggested that you or anyone condone the attacks and deaths of anyone. I'm sure you are as upset about the situation as I am. All I did was imply that if no one wanted the firefighters help when they arrived, they would have died in vain. Please email me to discuss this further. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 11:29:48 AM EDT
[#4]
Zazou, the sheriff is a Constitutional officer by the Florida Constitution, therefore, a Constitutional Officer. The obligations of the Sheriff and duties are spelled out in our state constitution. The law's and statutes of Florida refer to the Sheriff as the chief constitutional officer of any of the 67 counties in the State of Florida. So, how do you assume it is not? (ever heard of states rights?)
As to the size or elitist status of my testicles, I get a little irked by folks who claim to be the greatest patriot ever. Especially folks who have never done a damn thing for the country except burn up perfectly good oxygen. No, you don't have to be a vet to be a patriot. But for damn sure, you are not a better patriot than the lowliest snuffy who ever graced the main gate of any military compound. Because he/she did what was necessary and put up with a lot of crap so you have a right to piss and moan. Me, I don't have to pound on a soap box, yelling what a fine american I am. I do it by my deeds, not words. If you find that disagreeable, tough shitsky as the Soviet Marines used to say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 11:45:38 AM EDT
[#5]
But there are mechanisms built into the constitution for change and once one of those mechanisms is invoked than the change is constitutional, and hence lawful. And there are also mechanisms within the constitution to determine the constitutionality of laws and regulations, and once those mechanisms are exercised, than you should not object as to the constitutionality of items.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 1:04:27 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Me, I don't have to pound on a soap box, yelling what a fine american I am. Well, remember this? Quoted: So what have all of you "patriots" done for your country? If you don't feel the need to pound on a soap box yourself, why did you ask us to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 1:12:37 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: From what I have been hearing the only schools they have around there are terrorist ones, so if we did blow up some school kids we would just be killing some future terrorists. [(:)] Yeah, nits make lice; the only good Indian is a dead Indian. Our government already used that argument to justify killing kids once before. I hope you are joking here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 1:16:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: I never suggested that you or anyone condone the attacks and deaths of anyone. It really did come out that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 1:38:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Bill if rights is an itemization of Unalienable Rights, not rights granted by a Government in Power. Usurpation of these rights, by any governmnet is oppression regardless of intent. Zaz I think "itemization" is the wrong word here, as the connotation of it is that the listing is all-inclusive. But I agree 100% with what I think you are saying. If we believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal," then we must conclude that people living in foreign countries are fully entitled to all the rights we demand for ourselves, whether or not those rights are currently being respected by their own governments. Because being endowed with those rights by God, nature, or whatever is an inalienable part of being a human being and not just a freebee from Uncle Sam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 1:51:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Hey, Invictus, I pretty much agree with you philosophically, but I think you really need to work on your PR skills if you want to advance the cause. Calling people "leeches" or whatever is not going to persuade them.
While things COULD be done differently, I don't doubt for a minute that people like Stg44, etc. are motivated to take up such professions in large part by real patriotism and a genuine desire to help other people in the way that they are accustomed to seeing people be helped. The donut shop part comes later.[:P] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 2:04:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Zazou, the sheriff is a Constitutional officer by the Florida Constitution, therefore, a Constitutional Officer. The obligations of the Sheriff and duties are spelled out in our state constitution. The law's and statutes of Florida refer to the Sheriff as the chief constitutional officer of any of the 67 counties in the State of Florida. So, how do you assume it is not? (ever heard of states rights?) First, did you even read past the first sentence. Let me help you out. This may however exist in your State Constitution and I recognize there needs to be some element of Constablery. And But for damn sure, you are not a better patriot than the lowliest snuffy who ever graced the main gate of any military compound. Because he/she did what was necessary and put up with a lot of crap so you have a right to piss and moan. So by your logic you are a better Patriot that every on eof the Firefighters in NYT that nevr served im the Military. Every Officer killed defending in the line of duty who did not serve in the military. Every person who speaks at public gatherings, volunteers for worthwhile charity pales in their patriotism by your model. Jefferson. Franklin. Madison. Jay. Adams. Henry. None of them served in the Military. Were they the lesser of patriots? And I just hate to knock over your house of cards, but the 'while defending the nation from invaders' schtick is bit sour. Yes, they served. I thank and respect them for it. it is not however like a majority of the enlisted today have ever been even close to conflict. And this will really piss you off, but they are getting paid, you know, to defend our borders if needed. But serving your nation, upholding the Constitution and denfending our rights is more than being in the military. Are you out stopping the law makers oppressing me. Are you defending my right to free speech from those who would like it curbbed domestically? Are you combatting the gun-grabbers while in uniform? No. The military defends us against armies. The people, the patriots, must asure that those rights are protected in times of peace, not the military. Just give it a second to sink in. Zaz |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 2:06:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Fuzzbean and zazou:
I know that you are upset about all of the deaths in NY, VA, and PA. I know that you are appalled by the terrorists behavior. I know that you have sympathy for all of those affected. I know that you are not glad anyone died. And I know that you wish the attacks never happened. I never meant to imply otherwise. However, try to put yourself in my shoes, a Firefighter/EMT with 10 years of experience who has held the ranks of firefighter, engineer, captain, and assistant chief. Now read the following: There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self, or through private contract, especially when it comes to self-protection. My first thought: What if this guy was at the WTC during the attacks? If he was injured and needed to be carried out of the building, would he refuse treatment because the firefighters were paid from tax revenue? My second thought: What if everyone had this attitude? What if no one wanted the publicly funded FDNY personnel to help them? If that was the case, the firefighters would have died in vain...to no end...without success or result...in an irrelevant manner. In no way did I ever think, or intend to imply that you were glad firefighters died. Occasionaly I respond to emergencies and am greeted with the attitude presented in the above quote. I'm just glad it's not every time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 2:15:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Fuzzbean and zazou: I know that you are upset about all of the deaths in NY, VA, and PA. I know that you are appalled by the terrorists behavior. I know that you have sympathy for all of those affected. I know that you are not glad anyone died. And I know that you wish the attacks never happened. I never meant to imply otherwise. However, try to put yourself in my shoes, a Firefighter/EMT with 10 years of experience who has held the ranks of firefighter, engineer, captain, and assistant chief. Now read the following: There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self, or through private contract, especially when it comes to self-protection. My first thought: What if this guy was at the WTC during the attacks? If he was injured and needed to be carried out of the building, would he refuse treatment because the firefighters were paid from tax revenue? My second thought: What if everyone had this attitude? What if no one wanted the publicly funded FDNY personnel to help them? If that was the case, the firefighters would have died in vain...to no end...without success or result...in an irrelevant manner. In no way did I ever think, or intend to imply that you were glad firefighters died. Occasionaly I respond to emergencies and am greeted with the attitude presented in the above quote. I'm just glad it's not every time. sr15 Ok, you are coming through a little more clearly now. Just realize Invictus was making a economic arguement about his right to pay for what he chooses and not what he was forced to pay for by the government. You took it upon yourself to apply the disaster of the WTC to that point. An application that falls totally outside his point. I do recognize that in your profession it would be very frustrateing to want to do nothing more than help someone and they loath you for it. That sucks. It does not make his point about choosing and paying for protection of his choice less valid, however. It is his money. hell, maybe he would hire you specifically to come running in that scenario. Hell, you might even get a rais ewhern you did/ Anyhow, i am glad we got that clear. Zaz |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 2:37:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: sr15 Ok, you are coming through a little more clearly now. Just realize Invictus was making a economic arguement about his right to pay for what he chooses and not what he was forced to pay for by the government. I realize that. And actually, I agree with it for the most part. There are many reasons why I don't really think privitization of emergency services will work though. For one, could you imagine the cost per call of having a house full of firefighters and a $300,000.00 firetruck standing by for a few calls a day. Anyway, in my opinion, anger over taxes should first be directed at social programs and the like, not Sheriff's Deputies, Firefighters, and the Military. You took it upon yourself to apply the disaster of the WTC to that point. An application that falls totally outside his point. Umm...well, I'm not going to argue this one. Anyhow, i am glad we got that clear. Zaz No hard feelings here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 2:39:43 PM EDT
[#15]
Zazou, you need to read a little closer. I merely stated that I have an innate distrust of those "patriots" who have never served. Served in any capacity, be that military, law enforcement, firefighter, hell even the Peace Corp.
I am tired of folks who wrap themselves in the flag and decry all of us common folk. Especially when I am one of those who is trying to make a difference on a daily basis. If the shoe fits, wear it. BTW, constable carries different legal connotations than does sheriff and deputy sheriff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 4:02:12 PM EDT
[#16]
I have to thank Fuzzbean, Zazou, and Inviticus for defending me in my absence.
I have a couple of points to make: 1. Oil- OPEC is a creation of the US gov't by their getting involved in foreign affairs. 2. Patriotism- Serving in the military is no qualification. In fact, the Founders were opposed to a standing army. (Navy is a different story). So, serving in a standing army is in fact anti-patriotism. However, I realize that most people fail to realize that, and they go into the military for patriotic reasons. Just FYI 3. Jane Fonda- Yes, Jane and me both agree that we shouldn't have been in Vietnam, and a few other places. That's where the similarity ends. She would support any action that would depose a capitalist from power, and where a communist or socialist would come to power. I, however, oppose any overseas action, unless the purpose is defense. 4. "Will of the People"- Line from Marx, and Gore. The gov't's sole purpose is to protect its people's liberty. If the people want to destroy liberty, the gov't must not give in. But, our gov't is wants to do it. And, the people want liberty(well, the ones who are not mislead), so our gov't is not representative of the people, nor is it protecting liberty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 4:18:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: I have to thank Fuzzbean, Zazou, and Inviticus for defending me in my absence. I have a couple of points to make: 1. Oil- OPEC is a creation of the US gov't by their getting involved in foreign affairs. 2. Patriotism- Serving in the military is no qualification. In fact, the Founders were opposed to a standing army. (Navy is a different story). So, serving in a standing army is in fact anti-patriotism. However, I realize that most people fail to realize that, and they go into the military for patriotic reasons. Just FYI 3. Jane Fonda- Yes, Jane and me both agree that we shouldn't have been in Vietnam, and a few other places. That's where the similarity ends. She would support any action that would depose a capitalist from power, and where a communist or socialist would come to power. I, however, oppose any overseas action, unless the purpose is defense. 4. "Will of the People"- Line from Marx, and Gore. The gov't's sole purpose is to protect its people's liberty. If the people want to destroy liberty, the gov't must not give in. But, our gov't is wants to do it. And, the people want liberty(well, the ones who are not mislead), so our gov't is not representative of the people, nor is it protecting liberty. not quite sure where you are going there. Yes "the people" can have vastly differnet connotations depending on who is saying it and what they mean. The FF's also didn't believe in mob rule. But I think it is important that the Constitution list some Rights, but not all, and they are God given and not "priviliges" given by the Government. The Constitution also sets up the Government and says basically that the People give the Government it's power and the Government is to act in the people's interest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 4:18:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Well, if you can go back 100 plus years ago and get ride of American interventionism than you might be able to make an argument. But you cannot change the last 100 plus years of history. So what are you going to do sit around a piss and moan about things you cannot change or actually be willing to do something when your time comes.
The founders may have not wanted standing armies, Unlike the time some you wish you lived in today’s wars are come as you are affairs, you need to standing armies because the technology of warfare isn’t so simple anymore. The founders couldn’t imagine a world in which it took 16 weeks to just to train a basic rifleman, 12 months to train a ground combat arms officer, and 2 years to train a pilot. Also unlike in the past were the only weapons were rifles and cannon, our weapons take a long time to make. It takes several months from the start of production to you have a finished tank or plane. It no longer takes 6-12 months to move a decisive force overseas. We don’t have the time to build an army from scratch. Also the provisions of the constitutions state that funding can not be done for more than a 2 year period, last time I looked the funding is done on an annual basis to stay within the frame work of the constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 4:50:33 PM EDT
[#19]
Well if you go back 100 years the US was far less involved in foriegn affairs than it was by WWI. They got involved becuase isolationism wasn't working, nor did it work prior to WWII.
Ben Franklin was the US Ambassador to France. He lived ther for several years. I think the warned about entangling alliances, not foreign relations/policy. Remember the world was much "larger" back then. 6 weeks boat ride from the US to Britian. 8 weeks or more to Japan. Now we can call anywhere in the world in seconds, the internet is worldwide. The Concorde will go from NY to Paris in like 6 hours. In the 1700's the US was basically self sufficient, even an exporter of goods and raw materials. Now there are millions of dollars flowing into and out of the US every second because of international trade. US companies own factories and other facilities all over the world. Do you really think the US could disapear from the "world stage" and it wouldn't effect how we all live and work? If you are saying we shouldn't be launching covert ops to eliminate unfriendly governments or people. I mostly agree with you. But when push comes to shove I believe the US has the RESPONSIBILTY to protect it's national interests and citizens with, well pushing or shoving if that is what is needed. Of course pushing and shoving becomes more likely when our foriegn policy becomes xenophobic, tough to solve problems without a dialogue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 6:23:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: The Bill of Rights applies to US citizens in the US. Not French citizens in Japan. technically speaking, the rights described within the Bill of Rights are instrinsic to all humans. that was the belief of our founding fathers. those rights and others are called "natural" rights because they believed that all, let me repeat that, ALL men "automatically" had rights to these things. these rights could/should not be infringed upon by either individual (crimes) nor government (tyranny). the problem arises in that the U.S. cannot enforce this ideology outside of its own borders. but regardless, you and i have exactly the same rights guaranteed to us by "our Creator" as does the Chinese woman who is forced to be sterilized. she has no less rights than you or i. the only difference being that her government infringes upon those rights. the Bill of Rights does not list, does not enumerate, does not itemize , does not even guarantee any of our rights. it simply reaffirms the existence of them. the list is not all inclusive, nor does it validate them. we all have a right to those things regardless of the existence (or lack) of the Bill of Rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 6:32:34 PM EDT
[#21]
also, i'm please to know that there are several people who have taken a more active role in guaranteeing our rights are maintained. however, i'm a little discouraged by the chest-beating attitudes.
the definition of a patriot says nothing about one's actions. it is not defined by anything that a person has [i]done[/i]. it is defined by the heart and mind of the person. in general, true patriotism is usually manifested in action, but that is the result of the heart and mind. the action itself is worthless as a judge of the person's level of patriotism. neither can you fairly judge a person based on action or inaction for this reason. i am no less a patriot than any of you because i have not "done" all that you have done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 6:47:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Oly-M4,
I am curious to know how isolationism wasn't working. Between 1865 and 1900 The US had its largest growth rate ever, low taxes, free foreign trade, no longer had a internation enemy (this changed when started interventionism and went to war with Spain in 1898) I am sure you just said that wrong. Ben franklin had been dead fo 110 years by 1900. He was ambassodor to France in 1776 to to 1784. And it was Washington who warned against enatglements in his farwell address as President. The quote goes: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. " translation. Participate in free trade. Do not get involved with politics. And finially Isolationism is the 'modern' way of saying Neutrality. It does not mean no trade, it means political neutrality. Isolationism, the term, became popular in the early 1900s by those politicos who wanted to get involved in foreign politics to make it, neutrality, sound bad. Sort of a PC spin of the day. I do agree that we can't sit back and whine about it all now. We are in this shit-mess and need to get out. We have made enemies and now are going to have to deal with them. What most of us who are taking heat fro on this board are saying is that when we eliminate the immediate threat (Laden?) . Then we would be better served long term by altering our policies to return us to those that the country was founded on and not continue the faulted path we are now facing. Zaz PS is this thread getting old? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 9:55:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Invictus, first of all, I don't sweat to the oldies in Florida. FYI, a deputy sheriff is a Constitutional officer. I am sworn in by an elected officer. If that is a leech, then so be it. But since you don't live in my county, thankfully, it ain't none of your damn business. Does this mean the next time I go to the Gulf Breeze Pistol Parlor to go shooting I shouldn't invite you? It has been a while since I have been to Santa Rosa or Escambia counties. And I can't help the fact that you didn't have the balls to go and defend your right to be obnoxious assholes. Exactly what do you mean? If you are inferring that I never served in the military, how do you know that? Talking to Miss Cleo again? Me, I'll just keep on doing the good job, while you, and your ilk are constantly pissed off at life. Actually I am very happy. Could be happier, but most people would say the same. At least I don't have to look in the mirror everyday knowing that I am "serving" the people whether they like it or not. If someone wants my goods or services they will pay me for it. If someone feels that your services are either unnecessary or too expensive, tough shit, *you* will be there to confiscate their property for non-payment of taxes, if they dare try to not pay your salary. Nice racket you got going, small time organized criminals are green with envy I am sure. rDAm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 11:05:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Hey, Invictus, I pretty much agree with you philosophically, but I think you really need to work on your PR skills if you want to advance the cause. Calling people "leeches" or whatever is not going to persuade them. While things COULD be done differently, I don't doubt for a minute that people like Stg44, etc. are motivated to take up such professions in large part by real patriotism and a genuine desire to help other people in the way that they are accustomed to seeing people be helped. The donut shop part comes later.[:P] Hey why are you Bustin' on my profession Fuzzbean? It's merely coincidence that I keep bakers hours. [;)] I agree with you as well, but I won't hide the fact that I think those that earn their living from another (via taxation) without the expressed consent of the taxed, are leeches. The military is an exception, constitutionally noted as well. Problem being that a large standing [i]army [/i]was not to be had, they have a tendency to get into mischief, either at home or abroad. With the way a few here have howled since I have said that, you would think I just staked a porcine vampire through the heart! As far as the people that are currently in their respective fields of "Policing" and "EMS" I have the fullest confidence that if their jobs were "privatized" tomorrow, and they were half as good as they think they are, they would still doing what they enjoy doing, and getting paid for it. If they weren't it would be because they either lacked ability, or they weren't economically feasible in the first place. rDAm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2001 11:38:35 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: As far as the people that are currently in their respective fields of "Policing" and "EMS" I have the fullest confidence that if their jobs were "privatized" tomorrow, and they were half as good as they think they are, they would still doing what they enjoy doing, and getting paid for it. If they weren't it would be because they either lacked ability, or they weren't economically feasible in the first place. rDAm How do you suggest privitizing fire, ems, and police services? Before you try to read something into this question that is not there, let me make it clear that I am not against this idea, but I have never heard of plan that would actually work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 2:35:09 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: How do you suggest privitizing fire, ems, and police services? Before you try to read something into this question that is not there, let me make it clear that I am not against this idea, but I have never heard of plan that would actually work. sr15, That is a valid question. I don't have the time to talk right now, I have to straighten a few things out, will be gone for a while. I'll try to touch on it tonight. rDAm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 2:36:25 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: That is a sad commentary on the ignorance of a spoiled brat. I don't suppose you mind to define what a spoiled brat is would you? You have clearly demonstrated by example what ignorance is. rDAm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 2:46:58 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: I have to thank Fuzzbean, Zazou, and Inviticus for defending me in my absence. No sweat. you covered my back, I'll cover yours. I have a couple of points to make: 1. Oil- OPEC is a creation of the US gov't by their getting involved in foreign affairs. You aren't the first one to link American-foriegn intrigue with the creation of OPEC, let alone its posturing. I understand what you are stating. rDAm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 3:13:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Well, I would say anyone who benefits from the actions of other, than says that they never asked them (even if they could) to do it for them. They are brats, and proving my point that most who claim patriotism are not patriots, but closet anarchists.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 4:17:57 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: That is a sad commentary on the ignorance of a spoiled brat. I don't suppose you mind to define what a spoiled brat is would you? You have clearly demonstrated by example what ignorance is. rDAm Oh yea, I forgot, you lack the skills to glean the intimation from my quote of the reply. Let me break it down in a nut-shell so you'll understand: A member recounted his service to country during the height of the Cold War. You responded by basically saying [in 6 year old [i]girl's[/i] voice] "I did not ask you to 'protect' meeeeeee, I didn't need you nor anyone else in this country to protect meeeee, I don't need ANYBODY!" And with that you called him a "tax leech". A "tax leech"; for honorable service to his country on the brink of war. That insult coupled with the ignorant, over-generalized, sophomore-like, anarchy-fantasy-land solution to big government speaks for itself. If you possessed the grey matter that, from your posts here, you evidently lack, even you could see how silly and "brat-like" you sound. Maybe when you grow up and remove your head from your ass, you'll get it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 1:46:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: The Bill of Rights applies to US citizens in the US. Not French citizens in Japan. technically speaking, the rights described within the Bill of Rights are instrinsic to all humans. that was the belief of our founding fathers. those rights and others are called "natural" rights because they believed that all, let me repeat that, ALL men "automatically" had rights to these things. these rights could/should not be infringed upon by either individual (crimes) nor government (tyranny). the problem arises in that the U.S. cannot enforce this ideology outside of its own borders. but regardless, you and i have exactly the same rights guaranteed to us by "our Creator" as does the Chinese woman who is forced to be sterilized. she has no less rights than you or i. the only difference being that her government infringes upon those rights. the Bill of Rights does not list, does not enumerate, does not itemize , does not even guarantee any of our rights. it simply reaffirms the existence of them. the list is not all inclusive, nor does it validate them. we all have a right to those things regardless of the existence (or lack) of the Bill of Rights. So are you saying when we see people outside the US being treated in a manner that violates their Rights we should do nothing like '76 proposes?? Or should we as a super power try yo make the world a better place to live no matter where the mistreated are? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 2:06:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Oly-M4, I am curious to know how isolationism wasn't working. Between 1865 and 1900 The US had its largest growth rate ever, low taxes, free foreign trade, no longer had a internation enemy (this changed when started interventionism and went to war with Spain in 1898) Ben Fanklin had been dead fo 110 years by 1900. He was ambassodor to France in 1776 to to 1784. Remember the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800's? The US Navy was sent to Tripoli because the pirates were interfering with trade. The Navy had instructions to go to war if neccesary. Certainly that would be similar to the US getting involved in Kuwait. And it was Washington who warned against enatglements in his farwell address as President. And finially Isolationism is the 'modern' way of saying Neutrality. It does not mean no trade, it means political neutrality. Isolationism, the term, became popular in the early 1900s by those politicos who wanted to get involved in foreign politics to make it, neutrality, sound bad. Sort of a PC spin of the day. Neutrality and Isolationism are two different things. If you said strict neutrality I might agree with that. A neutral country is not necesarily isolated from the rest of the world, but it's actions are very controlled. An isolationist country would have fewer ambassadors, and few contacts with other countries for political reasons. How does an isolationist country keep Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons from prolifirating? I agree that we can't sit back and whine about it all now. We are in this shit-mess and need to get out. We have made enemies and now are going to have to deal with them. What most of us who are taking heat fro on this board are saying is that when we eliminate the immediate threat (Laden?) . Then we would be better served long term by altering our policies to return us to those that the country was founded on and not continue the faulted path we are now facing. Zaz If you mean we should stay out of other countries politics I agree. I would also like to see fewer covert ops like the ones we talke about that put the Shah of Iran in power. But foriegn policy is difficult and often has unforseeable consquences. Was it President Reagan that authorized US weapons shipment to Afghanistan? POTUS Reagan won the Cold War. If that helped weaken the USSR it might have been worth it. The USSR was more dnagerous than Bin Laden ever will be. I'm sure the US thought the Afghanee people would be grateful for our assistance. Instead some of them found they like killing and weapons. The got used to our "charity" and got pissed when we tried to get them off the dole............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 4:08:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Remember the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800's? The US Navy was sent to Tripoli because the pirates were interfering with trade. The Navy had instructions to go to war if neccesary. Certainly that would be similar to the US getting involved in Kuwait. Ok, OT, but that is not true. Libya had been charging taxes on ships in the gulf of Sidra. For years merchants had convinced their Governemtns, French, British, US, etc, to pay the taxes for them. Finally these Governments no longer were willing to pay them and told the merchants to do it themselves, as I think they should. An American ship decided to go into the Gulf wihtout paying the tax, one that had been legitimizes by years of previous payment. The ship was siezed, and subsequenty others, and the crews held prisoner. The US then sent the Marines and Navy into get them. This is where the notion that the Marines will come and get you came from. The term pirates is a modern ruse to justify our actions. And the Arabs never forget. Zaz |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 4:33:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Invictus, the Pistol Parlor and Indoor Range have been closed for several years. Duke now has Gulf Breeze Firearms and generally only deals in high dollar firearms. As to an organized criminal, I can assure you if I was a criminal I know enough to be one hell of a lot wealthier than I currently am.
AR Lady, I guess you misunderstand me. I am not pounding my chest saying I am better than you, or anyone else for that matter because I have served, and continue to do so. I am merely being very cynical of all the "patriots" who have never done a damn thing for the nation. But proclaim to be God's gift to patriotism. I guess I recall the old, but true saying, Patriotism is the last refuge of liars and scoundrels. If the shoe fits, wear it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 4:58:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: I am merely being very cynical of all the "patriots" who have never done a damn thing for the nation. But proclaim to be God's gift to patriotism. Hey, dude. You ain't misusing your law enforcement resources to do some kind of unofficial background checks on the rest of us, are you? You seem to be aware of so much. [peep] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 5:28:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Yep, and you had better pay that damn ticket!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 5:38:00 PM EDT
[#37]
I bet $20 that these so called patriots (Liberty/Invictus/Fuzzbean/Zazou and others) are all under the age of 25.[:\]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 5:53:23 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: I bet $20 that these so called patriots (Liberty/Invictus/Fuzzbean/Zazou and others) are all under the age of 25.[:\] Well, you can collect $5: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted:hey liberty of 76, how old are you kiddo? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=56541[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 6:48:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Bill of Rights applies to US citizens in the US. Not French citizens in Japan. technically speaking, the rights described within the Bill of Rights are instrinsic to all humans. that was the belief of our founding fathers. those rights and others are called "natural" rights because they believed that all, let me repeat that, ALL men "automatically" had rights to these things. these rights could/should not be infringed upon by either individual (crimes) nor government (tyranny). the problem arises in that the U.S. cannot enforce this ideology outside of its own borders. but regardless, you and i have exactly the same rights guaranteed to us by "our Creator" as does the Chinese woman who is forced to be sterilized. she has no less rights than you or i. the only difference being that her government infringes upon those rights. the Bill of Rights does not list, does not enumerate, does not itemize , does not even guarantee any of our rights. it simply reaffirms the existence of them. the list is not all inclusive, nor does it validate them. we all have a right to those things regardless of the existence (or lack) of the Bill of Rights. So are you saying when we see people outside the US being treated in a manner that violates their Rights we should do nothing like '76 proposes?? Or should we as a super power try yo make the world a better place to live no matter where the mistreated are? i'm saying that [b]ALL HUMANS[/B] (official documents read "all men," not "just the citizens of the United States of America") possess these rights. are you trying to drag me into the discussion by setting me up with questions that have no right or wrong answer? further more, i have a sneaky suspicion that no matter what my answer, you're just waiting to jump on it and argue with it. no thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 6:58:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: I bet $20 that these so called patriots (Liberty/Invictus/Fuzzbean/Zazou and others) are all under the age of 25.[:\] Just leaving 30 Guess your gonna owe a few on that bet. Husband. Father. Self Employed. Anything else personal you would like to know that has nothing to do with this thread? BTW, how do I have to be before I qualify as worthy of a valid opinion in your book, great and elderly sage? Zaz |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 7:15:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Zazou..28 IMHO. My point was that when a man is young they have yet to see enough of this world to really form their own opinion. Usually when a young man is spouting off beliefs it is more of something they read or would told...not [i]their[/i] actual opinion. The reason being is that it takes [i]true life experience[/i] before a man's opinion is truely his.
Now, with that siad, lets hear from the rest of the crowd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2001 11:19:15 PM EDT
[#42]
I am older than both of you. I started out a liberal wanting mondale/ferraro to get elected, then became a republican, happy when reagan won that landslide second term. Now after gaining all of those years of "life experience" seeing how both sides are continually screwing over the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not to mention other countries who were our "friends", I became a Libertarian.
What really bothered me about the republicrats is the "bad if the opposition party does it, good if my party does it" mentality. The only thing that should matter is it good for the freedoms protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not partisian party politics. I always use this test: If a politician doesn't trust me with uninfringed ownership of a weapon of my choice, why should I trust him? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2001 3:03:26 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: Remember the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800's? The US Navy was sent to Tripoli because the pirates were interfering with trade. The Navy had instructions to go to war if neccesary. Certainly that would be similar to the US getting involved in Kuwait. Ok, OT, but that is not true. Libya had been charging taxes on ships in the gulf of Sidra. For years merchants had convinced their Governemtns, French, British, US, etc, to pay the taxes for them. Finally these Governments no longer were willing to pay them and told the merchants to do it themselves, as I think they should. An American ship decided to go into the Gulf wihtout paying the tax, one that had been legitimizes by years of previous payment. The ship was siezed, and subsequenty others, and the crews held prisoner. The US then sent the Marines and Navy into get them. This is where the notion that the Marines will come and get you came from. The term pirates is a modern ruse to justify our actions. And the Arabs never forget. Zaz They were "pirates" and did "tax" ships going through. But the also took sailors off ships forcing them into basically slavery. The British were NEVER bothered by the pirates. Great Britain was a naval power...... there is kind've a connection there. So we sent all 12 of our frigates there, including the USS Constitution. The pirates had dealt with the British before and knew the British never had all their ships in one place. So when 12 US ships showed up they thought we had many more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2001 5:54:01 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Well, I would say anyone who benefits from the actions of other, than says that they never asked them (even if they could) to do it for them. They are brats, and proving my point that most who claim patriotism are not patriots, but closet anarchists. I agree. I find that many are bunch of whining spoiled brats. Seeing them constantly complain that our government is soo oppressive is getting quite tiresome. The distinction between the whining right and the sniveling left is starting to blur. It is as if both groups of malcontents will never be satisfied until total anarchy ensues. You had better read teh definition of anarchy before you slap it down. Websters New Universal: 3. a theory that regards the absence of all [i]direct or coercive [/i[government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of society. (emphasis mine) Or as Patrick Hnery would have said "Honrable men doing business with Honorable men." Zaz |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2001 6:53:27 PM EDT
[#45]
I had not even considered that some of the most rabid "patriots" were so young.
This has gotten me to thinking. Why are young, hopefully fit young men, not down at the (pick your favorite armed force) recruiter signing up right now? Maybe...because it is damn easy to spout off about the birthright you were afforded by men and women who put their all on the line to win, and repeatdly defend those rights you hold so dear. Again I ask, why all the words and no action? Isn't a direct attack on the civil population reason enough to step up to the plate and take your turn at bat? Or is it simply a case of lack of testicular materials to work with? BTW, nice re-write of the history of the Barbary Coast-and the Barbary pirates were, and are not arabs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2001 7:12:16 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: I had not even considered that some of the most rabid "patriots" were so young. This has gotten me to thinking. Why are young, hopefully fit young men, not down at the (pick your favorite armed force) recruiter signing up right now? Maybe...because it is damn easy to spout off about the birthright you were afforded by men and women who put their all on the line to win, and repeatdly defend those rights you hold so dear. Again I ask, why all the words and no action? Isn't a direct attack on the civil population reason enough to step up to the plate and take your turn at bat? Or is it simply a case of lack of testicular materials to work with? God, are you back to this already?!?! What the hell did the Mess Hall feed you? Do you find any non-military action worthy? Anything? I suppose you'll say LEO or FireFighter. Anything else worthy? Really, I am just curious. The fact is that less than 15% of the enitre US citizen population has served, 70%+ of those that do are support/NC's . Are the remaining 85% of the US citizens incapable of being patriots? Does everyone of them need to bow before your superior patriotism becasue you served, in a time of relaitve peace even? And what of the 70%+ portion of the military who is support personel who have not been in active combat. How do they rate? I am beginning to think you just are short-sighted and feel anyone who hasn't served in the military is not capapble of being a patriot. So again, please, offer anything that you think would show patriotism by action other than military? Zaz |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2001 7:36:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: I had not even considered that some of the most rabid "patriots" were so young. This has gotten me to thinking. Why are young, hopefully fit young men, not down at the (pick your favorite armed force) recruiter signing up right now? Maybe...because it is damn easy to spout off about the birthright you were afforded by men and women who put their all on the line to win, and repeatdly defend those rights you hold so dear. Again I ask, why all the words and no action? Isn't a direct attack on the civil population reason enough to step up to the plate and take your turn at bat? Or is it simply a case of lack of testicular materials to work with? God, are you back to this already?!?! What the hell did the Mess Hall feed you? Do you find any non-military action worthy? Anything? I suppose you'll say LEO or FireFighter. Anything else worthy? Really, I am just curious. The fact is that less than 15% of the enitre US citizen population has served, 70%+ of those that do are support/NC's . Are the remaining 85% of the US citizens incapable of being patriots? Does everyone of them need to bow before your superior patriotism becasue you served, in a time of relaitve peace even? And what of the 70%+ portion of the military who is support personel who have not been in active combat. How do they rate? I am beginning to think you just are short-sighted and feel anyone who hasn't served in the military is not capapble of being a patriot. So again, please, offer anything that you think would show patriotism by action other than military? Zaz Patriots: Doctors/nurses/paramedics. Pilots/airline attendants. Computer geeks like my wife who HAVE, through logic and reason, turned even ONE sheeple into an awakened American. Her Egyptian Muslim friend at work, named Osama, who cried at the senseless violence done to our people, and cursed the tangos for the barbarians that they are. Everyone who takes part in the economy. Everyone who writes to their elected reps when those reps, no matter what party or stripe, act with other than Constitutional intent. For starters. Oh, yeah, and those of us in Combat Arms, LE, and Firefighters. All of us that love our Country, and would like to see unconstitutional government meddling stopped. Oh, yeah, I like Ron Paul and his legislation. Would you embrace the bloodshed and chaos that would occur when everyone decides to overthrow the gov't? The lib/hippies from the '60s: Ran our Government for 8 years. They control the Senate now. They run billion dollar a year businesses, Hollywood, and the media. Imagine if those of us with true Patriotism, NO MATTER WHAT THE OCCUPATION, did the same? Airborne! Don Out |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2001 11:24:26 PM EDT
[#48]
John "close the gunshow loophole" McCain, Bob "I helped ban assault weapons" Kerry, and Al "I invented the internet" Gore are all Vietnam vets. I hope stg44 is going to contribute to their re-election campaigns since they are true patrtiots unlike those that didn't serve at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2001 2:56:47 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Invictus, the Pistol Parlor and Indoor Range have been closed for several years. Duke now has Gulf Breeze Firearms and generally only deals in high dollar firearms. sigh...a damn shame. The first glock I shot was from there. Oh well I bet the area doesn't look a bit like it did before I left. As to an organized criminal, I can assure you if I was a criminal I know enough to be one hell of a lot wealthier than I currently am. Quoted: Nice racket you got going, small time organized criminals are green with envy I am sure. Actually the above reference is to how if someone doesn't pay for your services that they do not wish from you the Sheriff comes in and boots their butt outt'a their house, and it goes to auction for non payment of taxes. Any criminal would love to have that power. I would say that the situation reminds me of the bum's that wait at the red lights to come up and wash your windows when you have specifically told them you do not want their service, then they get pissed if you don't pay them. Of course they are only armed with a bottle of windex and a rag instead of a HK USP 40 and a badge, not to mention they can't confiscate your car for non-payment of your services. AR Lady, I guess you misunderstand me. I am not pounding my chest saying I am better than you, or anyone else for that matter because I have served, and continue to do so. I am merely being very cynical of all the "patriots" who have never done a damn thing for the nation. But proclaim to be God's gift to patriotism. I guess I recall the old, but true saying, Patriotism is the last refuge of liars and scoundrels. If the shoe fits, wear it. rDAm edit 'cuz I can't seem to get the quotes to work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2001 4:34:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: I don't suppose you mind to define what a spoiled brat is would you? You have clearly demonstrated by example what ignorance is. rDAm Quoted: Oh yea, I forgot, you lack the skills to glean the intimation from my quote of the reply. Let me break it down in a nut-shell so you'll understand: A member recounted his service to country during the height of the Cold War. You responded by basically saying [in 6 year old [i]girl's[/i] voice] "I did not ask you to 'protect' meeeeeee, I didn't need you nor anyone else in this country to protect meeeee, I don't need ANYBODY!" If you are hearing voices coupled with my post, please seek the closest mental health facility post haste, you are loosing it faster than your delusional babbling reveals. By the way I still haven't asked anyone to join any service on my behalf. As a matter of fact you might even say I discourage it. As long as we are playing empire that is. None of your babbling or any "public servants" feigned indignation changes the fact that I don't need any help defending myself, and if I did, I would be better off contracting the service privately. And with that you called him a "tax leech". A "tax leech"; for honorable service to his country on the brink of war. leech n. One that preys on or clings to another; a parasite. Actually if you had the I.Q. of a goat you would have noticed I was talking about those that provide a dubious "Service" at taxpayer expense i.e. a "civil servant". A service that could be provided cheaper and more efficiently via the free market than fleecing the people at gunpoint. I would not be surprised that you recognized this yourself and you are a bit defensive about those uppity, stingy tax payers who want to keep the sweat of their own labor for themselves. I for one do not receive my paycheck from any governmental source, do you? That insult coupled with the ignorant, over-generalized, sophomore-like, anarchy-fantasy-land solution to big government speaks for itself. If you possessed the grey matter that, from your posts here, you evidently lack, even you could see how silly and "brat-like" you sound. Hmm... Fighting against big Government, more taxes and less liberty (according to you) = "bad" or "bratty". Well if that is what I sound like to you so be it. It is far better than the "Boot-Licker" you sound like to me. Maybe when you grow up and remove your head from your ass, you'll get it. Maybe if you would take the time to remove your tongue from the heel across your neck you will cease to be such a lickspittle. rDAm M4M |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
