New Preamble to the Constitution

rancerupp · Post by **rancerupp** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:45 am

Against my better judgment, I'm posting this here for at least some to enjoy.

After reading this again, it becomes painfully clear the similarities between ARTICLE XI and the USHGA Name Change proponents. Don't bother creating something you want, just take someone else's and rip it to shreads and make it yours. That seems to be the American way these days.

Rance

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an
attempt to help everyone get along, restore some
semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our
nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the
blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our
great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more
time to ordain and establish some common sense
guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden,
delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold
these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of
people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so
dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big
screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to
you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is
guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be
offended. This country is based on freedom, and that
means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may
leave the room, turn the channel, express a different
opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and
probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from
harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to
be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer
to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and
housing. Americans are the most charitable people to
be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we
are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation
after generation of professional couch potatoes who
achieve nothing more than the creation of another
generation of professional couch potatoes. (This one
is my pet peeve...get an education and go
to work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health
care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public
housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically
harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally
maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest
of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the
possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce
away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be
surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you
away in a place where you still won't have the right
to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All
of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly
help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take advantage of the opportunities of education and
vocational training laid before you to make yourself
useful. (AMEN!)

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness.
Being an American means that you have the right to
PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if
you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic
laws created by those of you who were confused by the
Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We
don't care where you are from, English is our
language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came
from! (lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our
country's history or heritage. This country was
founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you
are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any
faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of
persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our
heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable
with it, TOUGH!!!!

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:57 am

AMEN BROTHER !!!!!!!!!!

Rance, where did you find this?

Marco

Post by **Joe Schad** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:09 pm

Rance,

If I understand your comments you seem to define "Liberals" as

"Terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed wetters"

Is that your definition of people with liberal views?

Would you mind providing a definition of a person with conservative views and one for a person with Republican conservative views.

Your post seems to indicate you drank the cool aide.

Joe

rancerupp · Post by **rancerupp** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:23 pm

Joe,

Point taken.

It is not obvious that I did not come up with this, it was sent to me by a friend. Sorry if you thought I was writing this about you.

Rance

Post by **mcelrah** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:17 pm

I propose:

ARTICLE XII: You have to pay taxes. Get over it. All that free
stuff you enjoy - education, libraries, air traffic control,
enforceable contracts, transparency of financial dealings, roads,
police, firefighting, product standards, national defense, response
to natural disasters, social security, medicare - they all cost
money. Quit whining and cough it up.

- Hugh

On 18 Sep 2005, at 00:45, rancerupp wrote:

>
> Against my better judgment, I'm posting this here for at least some
> to enjoy.
>
> After reading this again, it becomes painfully clear the
> similarities between ARTICLE XI and the USHGA Name Change
> proponents. Don't bother creating something you want, just take
> someone else's and rip it to shreads and make it yours. That seems
> to be the American way these days.

>
> Rance
>
>
> "We the sensible people of the United States, in an
> attempt to help everyone get along, restore some
> semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our
> nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the
> blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our
> great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more
> time to ordain and establish some common sense
> guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden,
> delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold
> these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of
> people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so
> dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."
>
> ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big
> screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to
> you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is
> guaranteeing anything.
>
> ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be
> offended. This country is based on freedom, and that
> means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may
> leave the room, turn the channel, express a different
> opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and
> probably always will be.
>
> ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from
> harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to
> be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer
> to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
>
> ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and
> housing. Americans are the most charitable people to
> be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we
> are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation
> after generation of professional couch potatoes who
> achieve nothing more than the creation of another
> generation of professional couch potatoes. (This one
> is my pet peeve...get an education and go
> to work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)
>
> ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health
> care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public
> housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
>
> ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically
> harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally
> maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest
> of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
>
> ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the
> possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce
> away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be
> surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you
> away in a place where you still won't have the right
> to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
>
> ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All
> of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly
> help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
> take advantage of the opportunities of education and
> vocational training laid before you to make yourself
> useful. (AMEN!)
>
> ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness.
> Being an American means that you have the right to
> PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if
> you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic
> laws created by those of you who were confused by the
> Bill of Rights.
>
> ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We
> don't care where you are from, English is our
> language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came
> from! (lastly....)
>
> ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our
> country's history or heritage. This country was
> founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you
> are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any
> faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of
> persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our
> heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable
> with it, TOUGH!!!!
>

Post by **Joe Schad** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:26 pm

Hi Rance,

The point I was trying to make is that you obviously accept the entirely negative stereo type terms for people you call liberals. I believe it says far more about the character and values of the speaker that the people that are being ridiculed.

Further, if you happen to listen to Rush or others of his Republican view you would find a perponderance of very negative stereo type words used to describe anything or anyone who is in opposition to their views. It is a very effective tactic to continuously demean a class of people you oppose. If you convince enough people that a certain class is less than human you can even get away with burning them in gas chambers.

By the way just what is a Republican conservative?

We don't really have a conservative administration in office. Rather we have a religous administration using millions of good honest conservative people. Some day they will realize how they have been so badly used.

Joe

Post by **deveil** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:30 pm

go for it dude
you get a free pass from me.

rancerupp · Post by **rancerupp** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:25 am

Joe,

> ...you obviously accept the entirely negative stereo type terms for people you call liberals.

You make a LOT of assumptions about me (and maybe others) that you have no idea about (see below). And Yes, if you want to talk about groups, I think the 'Liberals' have gone overboard in a lot of areas. They need to be reigned in. Do you consider yourself a Liberal? And if so, what's your definition of a Liberal? I don't follow Webster anymore.

> Further, if you happen to listen to Rush or others of his Republican view you would find a perponderance of very negative stereo type words used to describe anything or anyone who is in opposition to their views.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. And no, I can't recall the last time I listened to Rush.

Another shocker for you I'm sure. Another 'assumption' of yours debunked.

> It is a very effective tactic to continuously demean a class of people you oppose.

Interesting tip on arguing. Are you suggesting that I take that approach? Sometimes there's not much difference between demeaning a class vs. setting them straight on what's reasonable when they are so far out in left field. There are times when rediculous idiodic ideas need to be brought to light for exactly what they are.

> If you convince enough people that a certain class is less than human you can even get away with burning them in gas chambers.

Hey, if a class is 'less than human', then burning them in gas chamber may not be a bad idea.

> By the way just what is a Republican conservative?

I wouldn't have a clue. I'm not a Republican.

Shocker # 2.

> We don't really have a conservative administration in office. Rather we have a religous administration using millions of good honest conservative people. Some day they will realize how they have been so badly used.

You certainly have the right to your own 'opinion'. I'll grant you that.

Some simple math for you:
Liberals <> (necessarilly) Democrats
Conservatives <> (necessarilly) Republicans
Faaaaaar left or faaaaaar right is not the answer (IMO)
There's a thing called compromise.

Post by **deveil** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:58 am

.
dear rancerdude,
i'm not exactly sure how this will be taken, 'can only state that it is offerred sincerely.
to clarify something first: 'hadn't meant to sound (or be) patronizing previously ('give you a free pass' could sound like i think i'm in a position to 'give' you something or that you 'need' to be given something) but i do intend to honor that statement, meaning that i wouldn't be launching any attacks. whatever...'hope i'm clear enough.

i would like to offer something for you to consider, however...
(the implication being that it would be reasonabe, on your part, to toss it away if you see fit).

...there are some things in your post in the 'where you are coming from' department that are intriguing (to me), as in, hmmm... he might be speaking honestly and in a heartfelt manner, maybe i'll give it a listen.

here's where i get presumptuous.
there are some other things (and not just the gas the bastards thing - although that did get everyone's attention, i'm sure), the way they were said actually...
there are cultural sensitivities and such that, if approached in an unguarded or careless fashion, can make it difficult for others to hear, or want to hear, what you are saying - on a given point, but then carrying over to other things you may also be wanting to have heard.
this is different from the ole 'politically correct' thingy (which i acknowledge can itself be a matter of concern), and i think is something worth considering as important in having oneself heard, IMHO.
i've resisted going back and rereading your post for specifics because i want to stick with my initial impression, the way things struck me on an unanyltical basis.

yeah, yeah, i know this sounds odd coming from me (or not - depends on how closely one reads things).
any who...that's it, i'm not going to reread it any more. i'll just gamble... gary devan

Post by **brianvh** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:17 am

maybe it's just the statistics of having more liberals posting, but I saw
a lot more negative stereotypes portrayed in the liberal posts than in the
conservative posts. Marco slips occasionally, but for the most part he
has avoided the personal attacks levelled against him. If you know Rance,
you know he's nearly incapable of being nasty, though perhaps we all slip
at times.

I may not agree with much of Marco's politics, and perhaps I can say the
same about Rance though I don't know his politics as well (I tend to
lean more towards the center than most who post), but I think their
general tone has won points that the other side has lost.

Come'on guys, try to understand other people's viewpoints as coming from
the reasonable people we know we are...we basically trust our lives to
each other. I may have laughed when Marco said the republicans helped
Clinton trim the military, but I wasn't feeling mean about it. I thought
it was riotiously brilliant.

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
(Will be brianvanthull@yahoo.com exculsively in a week when the men with
white coats and pocket protectors come to take my account away.)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, rancerupp wrote:

>
> Joe,
>
> > ...you obviously accept the entirely negative stereo type terms for people you call liberals.
>

rancerupp · Post by **rancerupp** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:43 am

Gary,

I could never be a rancerdude, I don't like wearing a cowboy hat. ROTFLOL.

I believe I hear what you are saying and I agree. Thanks for the reminder.

Rance

rancerupp · Post by **rancerupp** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:52 am

Brian,

brianvh wrote:If you know Rance, you know he's nearly incapable of being nasty, though perhaps we all slip at times.

Thanks for the kind words but if you only knew how ugly I have been at times. The toung is sharper than a two edged sword and I've done my share of inappropriate slashing.

Yes, we do trust our lives to each other and thank you to those of you who have helped me along.

Rance

Post by **brianvh** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:16 am

Yup Rance,
There seems to be alot of people on this server who don't know each other.
The test of character is more action than words: I wish everyone here
could meet on the field of action and maybe there wouldn't be so much
&#$!! flying around on this list.

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, rancerupp wrote:

> Thanks for the kind words but if you only knew how ugly I have been at times. The toung is sharper than a two edged sword and I've done my share of inappropriate slashing.
>
> Yes, we do trust our lives to each other and thank you to those of you who have helped me along.
>
> Rance
>

Post by **deveil** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:19 am

sure glad i managed to slip my post in before yours. perhaps it lends more legitimacy to what i'm about to say:

HAR!,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...

allow me to repeat for emphasis.

HAR!,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...

brianvh wrote:
Marco slips occasionally

brianvh wrote: but I think (Marco's)
general tone has won points that the other side has lost.

brianvh wrote: (Marco's) viewpoints as coming from
the reasonable people

brianvh wrote: I thought
(Marco's) was riotiously brilliant.

you see...the very things that you are claiming on marco's behalf are the main and actual points that i disagree with. therefore i feel it is incumbent upon me to disagree...respectfully or, in this case, since it strikes me as

brianvh wrote:I thought it was riotiously brilliant.

riotiously funny and directed specifically at me, otherwise...

HAR!,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...

allow me to repeat for emphasis.

HAR!,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...

Post by **brianvh** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:03 pm

Hey, glad you got use out of it!

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, deveil wrote:

>
> sure glad i managed to slip my post in before yours. perhaps it lends more legitimacy to what i'm about to say:
>
> HAR!,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...
>
> allow me to repeat for emphasis.
>
> HAR!,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...
>
>
>
> brianvh wrote:
>
> Marco slips occasionally
> (end of quote)
>
>
>
>
> brianvh wrote:
> but I think (Marco's)
> general tone has won points that the other side has lost.
> (end of quote)
>
>
>
> brianvh wrote:
> (Marco's) viewpoints as coming from
> the reasonable people
> (end of quote)
>
>
>
> brianvh wrote:
> I thought
> (Marco's) was riotiously brilliant.
>
> (end of quote)
>
>
> you see...the very things that you are claiming on marco's behalf are the main and actual points that i disagree with. therefore i feel it is incumbent upon me to disagree...respectfully or, in this case, since it strikes me as
> brianvh wrote:
> I thought it was riotiously brilliant.
> (end of quote)
>
> riotiously funny and directed specifically at me, otherwise...
>
> HAR!,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...
>
> allow me to repeat for emphasis.
>
> HAR!,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe....
> markemX
>

Post by **deveil** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:44 pm

brianl wrote:Hey, glad you got use out of it!

brian,
sorry, (not really, i'm lieing

)( i just couldn't resist

), just too much fun.
but, yeah, sure....

At 10:17 AM -0400 9/20/05, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:
Come'on guys, try to understand other people's viewpoints

...I understand the overall point you were after...

...CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG...DAMMIT!

...something like that , right? RIGHT?!!.

gary

deveil wrote:.
dear rancerdude,
i'm not exactly sure how this will be taken, 'can only state that it is offerred sincerely.
to clarify something first: 'hadn't meant to sound (or be) patronizing previously ('give you a free pass' could sound like i think i'm in a position to 'give' you something or that you 'need' to be given something) but i do intend to honor that statement, meaning that i wouldn't be launching any attacks. whatever...'hope i'm clear enough.

i would like to offer something for you to consider, however...
(the implication being that it would be reasonabe, on your part, to toss it away if you see fit).

...there are some things in your post in the 'where you are coming from' department that are intriguing (to me), as in, hmmm... he might be speaking honestly and in a heartfelt manner, maybe i'll give it a listen.

here's where i get presumptuous.
there are some other things (and not just the gas the bastards thing - although that did get everyone's attention, i'm sure), the way they were said actually...
there are cultural sensitivities and such that, if approached in an unguarded or careless fashion, can make it difficult for others to hear, or want to hear, what you are saying - on a given point, but then carrying over to other things you may also be wanting to have heard.
this is different from the ole 'politically correct' thingy (which i acknowledge can itself be a matter of concern), and i think is something worth considering as important in having oneself heard, IMHO.
i've resisted going back and rereading your post for specifics because i want to stick with my initial impression, the way things struck me on an unanyltical basis.

yeah, yeah, i know this sounds odd coming from me (or not - depends on how closely one reads things).
any who...that's it, i'm not going to reread it any more. i'll just gamble... gary devan

.......................................BEFORE..................................

brian wrote:maybe it's just the statistics of having more liberals posting, but I saw
a lot more negative stereotypes portrayed in the liberal posts than in the
conservative posts. Marco slips occasionally, but for the most part he
has avoided the personal attacks levelled against him. If you know Rance,
you know he's nearly incapable of being nasty, though perhaps we all slip
at times.

I may not agree with much of Marco's politics, and perhaps I can say the
same about Rance though I don't know his politics as well (I tend to
lean more towards the center than most who post), but I think their
general tone has won points that the other side has lost.

Come'on guys, try to understand other people's viewpoints as coming from
the reasonable people we know we are...we basically trust our lives to
each other. I may have laughed when Marco said the republicans helped
Clinton trim the military, but I wasn't feeling mean about it. I thought
it was riotiously brilliant.

Brian Vant-Hull

Post by **Joe Schad** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:27 pm

Point taken Rance. I made assumptions also.

I think you are correct we need compromise but this administration is one that does not compromise except to say that if you go to their position they will work with you.

Maybe you should listen to Rush so we have a common understanding of my reference. I listen to him and Liddy on occasion just to hear their line for the day. Liddy I find is much more honest in the way he argues a point. I do have a problem with him since he once volunteered to take out reporter Jack Anderson if someone would just tell him which corner he would be on.

Joe

*********************************
> ...you obviously accept the entirely negative stereo type terms for people you call liberals.

You make a LOT of assumptions about me (and maybe others) that you have no idea about (see below). And Yes, if you want to talk about groups, I think the 'Liberals' have gone overboard in a lot of areas. They need to be reigned in. Do you consider yourself a Liberal? And if so, what's your definition of a Liberal? I don't follow Webster anymore.

> Further, if you happen to listen to Rush or others of his Republican view you would find a perponderance of very negative stereo type words used to describe anything or anyone who is in opposition to their views.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. And no, I can't recall the last time I listened to Rush. Another shocker for you I'm sure. Another 'assumption' of yours debunked.

> It is a very effective tactic to continuously demean a class of people you oppose.

Interesting tip on arguing. Are you suggesting that I take that approach? Sometimes there's not much difference between demeaning a class vs. setting them straight on what's reasonable when they are so far out in left field. There are times when rediculous idiodic ideas need to be brought to light for exactly what they are.

> If you convince enough people that a certain class is less than human you can even get away with burning them in gas chambers.

Hey, if a class is 'less than human', then burning them in gas chamber may not be a bad idea.

> By the way just what is a Republican conservative?

I wouldn't have a clue. I'm not a Republican. Shocker # 2.

> We don't really have a conservative administration in office. Rather we have a religous administration using millions of good honest conservative people. Some day they will realize how they have been so badly used.

You certainly have the right to your own 'opinion'. I'll grant you that.

Some simple math for you:
Liberals <> (necessarilly) Democrats
Conservatives <> (necessarilly) Republicans
Faaaaaar left or faaaaaar right is not the answer (IMO)
There's a thing called compromise.

Post by **Joe Schad** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:00 pm

As a Liberal I believe:

The constitution should be followed that provides the basic freedoms we enjoy. We should protect civil liberties and reform government where we are not doing so.

We should be tolerant of change in society and not be bound by one orthodoxy or tradition.

Government(federal) should be active to help solve domestic problems and improve the lives of its citizens through government programs. We are all Americans and we have a responsibility to each other.

Government should pay as it goes for the things and programs it wants.

Insure freedom of religion by keeping govenment from pushing one religion, or for that matter, religion in general, on the people in the form of programs, money, policies.

Government should minimize the number of laws on the books expecially those that restrict personal activity.

Some fundamental area are best the perview of the government:
E.g. Water systems, streets,highways, electrical supplies, police, firemen, emergency services, military, public transportation, environmental policies, parks, etc.

Government should regulate business to prevent the abuse of the market place that comes with money and power to dominate individual industries. eg. Enron and others.

Government should stay out of my private life. As an adult I should be able to have any relationship with another adults that is mutually acceptable to each without the governement saying they will not allow it.

I would love to see a mandatory draft for all citizens, a flat tax, balanced budget, and the 1954 Mccarthy era phrase "under God" removed from the pledge of Allegiance.

But I know it won't happen in the next three years.

Ronnie Reagan turned me into a liberal.

Joe

Post by **mcelrah** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:48 pm

Brian - does this mean you are no longer associated with the
university? - Hugh

On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:17, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:

>
>
> maybe it's just the statistics of having more liberals posting, but
> I saw
> a lot more negative stereotypes portrayed in the liberal posts than
> in the
> conservative posts. Marco slips occasionally, but for the most
> part he
> has avoided the personal attacks levelled against him. If you know
> Rance,
> you know he's nearly incapable of being nasty, though perhaps we
> all slip
> at times.
>
> I may not agree with much of Marco's politics, and perhaps I can
> say the
> same about Rance though I don't know his politics as well (I tend to
> lean more towards the center than most who post), but I think their
> general tone has won points that the other side has lost.
>
> Come'on guys, try to understand other people's viewpoints as coming
> from
> the reasonable people we know we are...we basically trust our lives to
> each other. I may have laughed when Marco said the republicans helped
> Clinton trim the military, but I wasn't feeling mean about it. I
> thought
> it was riotiously brilliant.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
> (Will be brianvanthull@yahoo.com exculsively in a week when the men
> with
> white coats and pocket protectors come to take my account away.)
>
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, rancerupp wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>>
>>> ...you obviously accept the entirely negative stereo type terms
>>> for people you call liberals.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:15 pm

Hey Brian,
Thanks for the passing grade on Debating 101. You are kind as well as wise !!!
And I'm glad you got a few laughs out of my (what I thought was factual) "riotiously brilliant" remarks.
Stay in the loop here....we need more voices from the middle.....so please keep posting.
Marco

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:54 pm

Joe,
thanks for your forthrightfulness. It's quite refreshing.
I actually agree with much of what you are saying. Lets go line by line. Your words in << >>.

<<As a Liberal I believe:

The constitution should be followed that provides the basic freedoms we enjoy. We should protect civil liberties and reform government where we are not doing so.>>
Reply: I agree.

<<We should be tolerant of change in society and not be bound by one orthodoxy or tradition.>>
Reply: Change can be for the better, or for the worse. Many conservatives do not endorse or accept many of the "changes" that liberal groups are promoting, and thus the "culture wars" and "values voters". These issues deserve honest debate and should be decided by the people democratically, not by unelected judges by judicial fiat.

<<Government(federal) should be active to help solve domestic problems and improve the lives of its citizens through government programs. We are all Americans and we have a responsibility to each other.>>

Reply: I agree with the idea in principle, but as I have stated before, PAYING for these huge social programs is the HARD part, as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all heading for inevitable bankruptcy. Most middle class families don't have the additional resources to pay for the increases in spending that these programs, as presently configured, will require. And as you have stated previously, each of us are already 26K in debt already.

<<Government should pay as it goes for the things and programs it wants.>>
Reply: I agree. Thats why we should balance the budget before we spend any more money period.

<<Insure freedom of religion by keeping govenment from pushing one religion, or for that matter, religion in general, on the people in the form of programs, money, policies.>>
Reply: I agree, and go further in that government should not be used to abolish or restrict religion either, especially by the Courts.

<<Government should minimize the number of laws on the books expecially those that restrict personal activity.>>

Reply: Most criminal laws are a restricition of personal activity......not sure "WHICH" personal activities you are talking about here.

<<Some fundamental area are best the perview of the government:
E.g. Water systems, streets,highways, electrical supplies, police, firemen, emergency services, military, public transportation, environmental policies, parks, etc.>>

Reply: Government has a role in society, no doubt about it, but it should be a limited role, and should not be a Socialist mega-government.

<<Government should regulate business to prevent the abuse of the market place that comes with money and power to dominate individual industries. eg. Enron and others.>>

Reply: We probably only disagree here on the amount or degree of regulation that is acceptable. Some is ok...too much can be detrimental. Criminal laws need to be enforced against any white collar criminals.

<<Government should stay out of my private life. As an adult I should be able to have any relationship with another adults that is mutually acceptable to each without the governement saying they will not allow it.>>

Reply: As long as your private life remains "private", and not a public display, I think I would agree with your statement.

<< I would love to see a mandatory draft for all citizens, a flat tax, balanced budget, and the 1954 Mccarthy era phrase "under God" removed from the pledge of Allegiance.>>

Reply: I agree with the balanced budget, but disagree with the draft presently (not needed) . The Flat Tax has some merit, but I'd prefer a National Sales Tax. And if you want to change the pledge, then do the work of convincing the public to agree with your position, and change it by the democratic process, not by some liberal activist judge "decreeing" it from the bench.

<<But I know it won't happen in the next three years.>>
Reply: I agree again.

Marco

Post by **Joe Schad** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:23 pm

Marco.

The constitution should be followed that provides the basic freedoms we enjoy. We should protect civil liberties and reform government where we are not doing so.>>
Reply: I agree.

Do you? If so then I would think you are appalled by the provisions of the patriot act that allow the FBI to search you house with ever telling you they are doing. There is still a fourth ammendment.

And the government should not be supporting one religion over another which is where we get all those problems with people trying to have government sponsored organizations referencing their gods during their official duties; you know like in school function, court proceedings etc or in pledges.

Marco, your comments about the budget give me a break. If you think your party should balance the budget get them to do it. Reagan said he was for a balance budget when running for office yet never even submitted one budget that was balance in his eight year in office. You guys are all talk but don't follow your stated fiscal principals. At least the Democrats say they are going to spend money for social programs. It is more honest.

Also, Marco you said:

Reply: Government has a role in society, no doubt about it, but it should be a limited role, and should not be a Socialist mega-government.

A. What functions should the government support? Be specific for once. Make a list for us.

B. What is wrong with big government? We have a big country, more and more people added everyday, more roads, cities, etc. IT takes a lot of people to provide just the basics of living for a society.

C. What is wrong with the idea of Social programs? E.G. Social Security, health care, Unemployment insurance, jobs programs and job training, etc. All these programs make for a more stable and healthy society.

Last, Marco you said:

And if you want to change the pledge, then do the work of convincing the public to agree with your position, and change it by the democratic process, not by some liberal activist judge "decreeing" it from the bench.

There is that one thing about the first amendment and religion remember. So it is the job of the Judges on the Supreme Court to decree whether the laws passed in 1954, that put "under God" in the pledge, which is mandatory for children in school to recite(Government directed), is constitutional or not. I believe it is not but they could rule otherwise. The ruling is a decree as it is required to be. Nothing wrong or abnormal in that fact.

Joe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe,
thanks for your forthrightfulness. It's quite refreshing.
I actually agree with much of what you are saying. Lets go line by line. Your words in << >>.

<<As a Liberal I believe:

The constitution should be followed that provides the basic freedoms we enjoy. We should protect civil liberties and reform government where we are not doing so.>>
Reply: I agree.

<<We should be tolerant of change in society and not be bound by one orthodoxy or tradition.>>
Reply: Change can be for the better, or for the worse. Many conservatives do not endorse or accept many of the "changes" that liberal groups are promoting, and thus the "culture wars" and "values voters". These issues deserve honest debate and should be decided by the people democratically, not by unelected judges by judicial fiat.

<<Government(federal) should be active to help solve domestic problems and improve the lives of its citizens through government programs. We are all Americans and we have a responsibility to each other.>>

Reply: I agree with the idea in principle, but as I have stated before, PAYING for these huge social programs is the HARD part, as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all heading for inevitable bankruptcy. Most middle class families don't have the additional resources to pay for the increases in spending that these programs, as presently configured, will require. And as you have stated previously, each of us are already 26K in debt already.

<<Government should pay as it goes for the things and programs it wants.>>
Reply: I agree. Thats why we should balance the budget before we spend any more money period.

<<Insure freedom of religion by keeping govenment from pushing one religion, or for that matter, religion in general, on the people in the form of programs, money, policies.>>
Reply: I agree, and go further in that government should not be used to abolish or restrict religion either, especially by the Courts.

<<Government should minimize the number of laws on the books expecially those that restrict personal activity.>>

Reply: Most criminal laws are a restricition of personal activity......not sure "WHICH" personal activities you are talking about here.

<<Some fundamental area are best the perview of the government:
E.g. Water systems, streets,highways, electrical supplies, police, firemen, emergency services, military, public transportation, environmental policies, parks, etc.>>

Reply: Government has a role in society, no doubt about it, but it should be a limited role, and should not be a Socialist mega-government.

<<Government should regulate business to prevent the abuse of the market place that comes with money and power to dominate individual industries. eg. Enron and others.>>

Reply: We probably only disagree here on the amount or degree of regulation that is acceptable. Some is ok...too much can be detrimental. Criminal laws need to be enforced against any white collar criminals.

<<Government should stay out of my private life. As an adult I should be able to have any relationship with another adults that is mutually acceptable to each without the governement saying they will not allow it.>>

Reply: As long as your private life remains "private", and not a public display, I think I would agree with your statement.

<< I would love to see a mandatory draft for all citizens, a flat tax, balanced budget, and the 1954 Mccarthy era phrase "under God" removed from the pledge of Allegiance.>>

Reply: I agree with the balanced budget, but disagree with the draft presently (not needed) . The Flat Tax has some merit, but I'd prefer a National Sales Tax. And if you want to change the pledge, then do the work of convincing the public to agree with your position, and change it by the democratic process, not by some liberal activist judge "decreeing" it from the bench.

<<But I know it won't happen in the next three years.>>
Reply: I agree again.

Marco

Back to top

Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

chgpa.org Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Page 1 of 1
Watch this topic for replies

Jump to: Select a forum Register and Participate - it's free!----------------Hang Gliding Flight TopicsParagliding Flight TopicsMarketplaceGround-Bound FunFiFiGeneral DiscussionForum HelpDeskDear WebmasterTest Forum

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 ? 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe,
thanks for your forthrightfulness. It's quite refreshing.
I actually agree with much of what you are saying. Lets go line by line. Your words in << >>.

<<As a Liberal I believe:

The constitution should be followed that provides the basic freedoms we enjoy. We should protect civil liberties and reform government where we are not doing so.>>
Reply: I agree.

<<We should be tolerant of change in society and not be bound by one orthodoxy or tradition.>>
Reply: Change can be for the better, or for the worse. Many conservatives do not endorse or accept many of the "changes" that liberal groups are promoting, and thus the "culture wars" and "values voters". These issues deserve honest debate and should be decided by the people democratically, not by unelected judges by judicial fiat.

<<Government(federal) should be active to help solve domestic problems and improve the lives of its citizens through government programs. We are all Americans and we have a responsibility to each other.>>

Reply: I agree with the idea in principle, but as I have stated before, PAYING for these huge social programs is the HARD part, as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all heading for inevitable bankruptcy. Most middle class families don't have the additional resources to pay for the increases in spending that these programs, as presently configured, will require. And as you have stated previously, each of us are already 26K in debt already.

<<Government should pay as it goes for the things and programs it wants.>>
Reply: I agree. Thats why we should balance the budget before we spend any more money period.

<<Insure freedom of religion by keeping govenment from pushing one religion, or for that matter, religion in general, on the people in the form of programs, money, policies.>>
Reply: I agree, and go further in that government should not be used to abolish or restrict religion either, especially by the Courts.

<<Government should minimize the number of laws on the books expecially those that restrict personal activity.>>

Reply: Most criminal laws are a restricition of personal activity......not sure "WHICH" personal activities you are talking about here.

<<Some fundamental area are best the perview of the government:
E.g. Water systems, streets,highways, electrical supplies, police, firemen, emergency services, military, public transportation, environmental policies, parks, etc.>>

Reply: Government has a role in society, no doubt about it, but it should be a limited role, and should not be a Socialist mega-government.

<<Government should regulate business to prevent the abuse of the market place that comes with money and power to dominate individual industries. eg. Enron and others.>>

Reply: We probably only disagree here on the amount or degree of regulation that is acceptable. Some is ok...too much can be detrimental. Criminal laws need to be enforced against any white collar criminals.

<<Government should stay out of my private life. As an adult I should be able to have any relationship with another adults that is mutually acceptable to each without the governement saying they will not allow it.>>

Reply: As long as your private life remains "private", and not a public display, I think I would agree with your statement.

<< I would love to see a mandatory draft for all citizens, a flat tax, balanced budget, and the 1954 Mccarthy era phrase "under God" removed from the pledge of Allegiance.>>

Reply: I agree with the balanced budget, but disagree with the draft presently (not needed) . The Flat Tax has some merit, but I'd prefer a National Sales Tax. And if you want to change the pledge, then do the work of convincing the public to agree with your position, and change it by the democratic process, not by some liberal activist judge "decreeing" it from the bench.

<<But I know it won't happen in the next three years.>>
Reply: I agree again.

Marco

Back to top

Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

chgpa.org Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Page 1 of 1
Watch this topic for replies

Jump to: Select a forum Register and Participate - it's free!----------------Hang Gliding Flight TopicsParagliding Flight TopicsMarketplaceGround-Bound FunFiFiGeneral DiscussionForum HelpDeskDear WebmasterTest Forum

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 ? 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

chgpa.org