Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Do we need fool proof voting in America?
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Do we need fool proof voting in America?
Posted: 8/29/2007 10:07:19 PM
No system is fool proof when we have overzealous partisans. The problem is not the system of voting but the fact that humans are flawed and therefore any system is subject to their "mistakes" whether accidental or not. The cheating was on both sides and so that cant be blamed on one side. The liberal media outlets called the Florida results before the polls closed in the largely military and Republican panhandle thus suppressing the Republican vote. An honest mistake I am sure . . .
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Do we need fool proof voting in America?
Posted: 8/29/2007 9:57:55 PM

You buy a pad of paper, a bunch of pens and a few boxes to stuff them into. Then have people from both parties count them. Really very simple.


Sort of how it worked early in Daley's career when dead people in Cook County Ill first started rising from their graves and unanimously voting Democrat every election day? Might be simple but far from fool proof.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 29 (view)
 
The War On Democracy..
Posted: 8/25/2007 11:01:58 AM

A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing. --Alexander Hamilton

Hey being in debt is a wonderful thing aint it? Well he got his way we are 10 trillion in debt.


God you cant even read your own cited quotes right, you ignoramus. DO you note Hamilton's use of the word excessive? He is dead on and 100% right. Debt is a good thing because it provides a track record (credit history) that enables you to borrow when you need huge projects funded. Whether that is wars or transcontinental railroads or canals or the US highway system. The govt should not be overtaxing us and sitting on the money like a savings account waiting for an emergency like Katrina or a woprthwhile project like those above. Certainly I dont want them putting through a special tax that would double my taxes as a one time charge to pay for such an emergency or project. So national credit is meant to be just like a home equity loan. A safety valve. The key word that you jsut totally ignore is Hamiltons use of the word excessive. You are blaming Hamilton for the excesses beyond his original intentions, which is CLEARLY stated in the quote YOU provide nad then try to twist to mean something it CLEARLY doesnt mean. This is why arguing with you is like playing poker with a cheater. as for the rest of your claptrap, Since you are too stupid to give up when soundly beaten, humiliated and disgraced, why bother? Go back to your circle jerk undder that rock
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 28 (view)
 
The War On Democracy..
Posted: 8/25/2007 10:53:03 AM
LOL, yeah , you got the right one for being a falwell scholar and product of a fundamentalist Christian institute of what passes for higher learning there. But it just proves that YOU sickos are the ones who dont let facts interrupt your deluded ramblings. lol My education on these matters came from participating in the process in the bright sunshine instead of hiding under rocks on the internet with the other slimy mindless slugs.

As for my condemnation of Jefferson, all it would require to understand it is reading comprehension since I have documented it well. But of course all you comprehend is hatred and lies so I am not surprised you have a problem with my words since those dont exist in MY words, only yours. As far as I know my ancestors never interacted with Jefferson but who knows. What I do know is that they had all too much interaction with anti semitic whackos like you. In fact your ilk is the reason no one on my mother's side survived WWII. Now by all means you two go back to your little self congratulatory circle jerk
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 25 (view)
 
The War On Democracy..
Posted: 8/25/2007 9:52:56 AM
It is just natural to ridicule the ridiculous. Again you fall back on the methods of McCarthy. Bush has nazi ties because of something his grandfather did before he was born? This is stock in trade for liars like you. Do I deny it? I deny it means what you would have us think it means. Joe Kennedy was a backer of Nazi Germany before the war. Henry Ford. Charles Lindbergh. Do their descendants have to endure your innuendo and slur tactics too? You tried in another thread to pass off slavery as something we cant blame Jefferson for because it was "of the times" Well many highly patriotic and highly placed Americans were pro Germany before our involvement in WWII. So why do you not afford Bush' grandfather the same courtesy you afford Jefferson? Simple, because it does not suit your nefarious purposes to smear Jefferson and it does so to smear Bush, no matter how outlandish or false your methods are. You are willing to be inconsistent, lie, twist logic, contradict your own previous statements, all in the name of winning debate points.

Similarly you twist his speech. Bush bullied the UN into approving his war in Iraq and now you accuse him of swearing obeisance to the organization? He ENDURES the UN, not swears obeisance to it. How can you be treated with anything but derision and ridicule in light of your continued intellectual bankruptcy?
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 24 (view)
 
The War On Democracy..
Posted: 8/25/2007 9:40:24 AM

prince Bandar Bush? point, counterpoint Inky(cabinet members advise isn't Bandar an adviser?) I see you like invoking Godwin's rule. My point is this Bandar is helping to undermine our constitution and our civil rights and ruining our democraticRepublic with Arab Israel concerns and leveraging government with oil and money


And I see you like engaging in sophistry. All cabinet memebers are advisors. all advisors are NOT cabinet members. I stand by my statement and your comment doesnt address the fact, it merely tries to use faulty logic to win a point. Jefferson was working to destroy Washington's administration from inside the cabinet. Lincoln brought all of his major political rivals for his parties nomination together into his cabinet. At least one of them, Chase, did his damnedest to undermine the administration and Linconln specifically for his own political gain. Sometimes keeping your friends close and your enemies closer is a wise course. If Bandar can provide sound advice and you can manage the negative, so what? You make statements and leave all these catastrophic inferences to be drawn.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 23 (view)
 
The War On Democracy..
Posted: 8/25/2007 9:33:19 AM
take your own advice and admit that WE could be right and not merely hard wired or brainwashed. Until you open your mind to the possiblity that you are a deluded conspiracy theorist, dont come tell me to open up my mind.

For instance, your question is twisted. You try to say we are evil/wrong/sheep because of our involvement in foreign conflicts. You then offer for proof the fact that no one has reciprocated with an invasion of us. First of all that just might have something to do with our overwhelming superiority militarily and our readiness to use that superiority. Second, some would say, myself included, that there are foreign soldiers on our ground right now as we eat, sleep and breathe. They are plotting or wating for their orders to conduct the followup to the World Trade Towers destruction. Third of all you have to admit that some of our entanglemens are widely supported, such as the rejection of Saddm's forces from his invasion of Kuwait, Desert Storm. If you are lumping all these military engagements together morally, I say you are on thin ice.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 10 (view)
 
The War On Democracy..
Posted: 8/24/2007 9:55:12 AM

How many Iraq's/Iranian's sit on the boards of major US corporations? Or sit on high level US government committees? or hold senate seats? or held a cabnet seat


I am not sure about restrictions, written or tacit that control who can sit on "high level govt committees", but I am pretty sure ya have to be a US citizen to hold a senate seat. Pretty sure no president has named a foreign national to his cabinet. Thus I feel kind of sure that no Iranians, Iraquis OR ISRAELIS have held those positions. . . but by all means dont let the obvious facts get in the way of a good rant.

[Who has the political power in Washington?]

Right now? A Texan with extensive personal and family ties to Arab oil. So what? A couple decades ago? A southern peanut farmer who was bailed out of financial trouble by radical Islamic terrorist money.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 8 (view)
 
The War On Democracy..
Posted: 8/24/2007 9:46:42 AM

In this century we have seen for the first time in America history, an administration that systematically broke its own laws and that of the international community.

No government can hold anyone indefinately without putting him/her through a justice system, no matter how great their crime is, otherwise it is equivalent to kidnapping, the kind criminals commit.


I am continually amazed at how little people know about American History and how willing they are to flap their gums (fingers) proving it.

In THIS century?

Lincoln outright suspended habeas corpus to aid in the prosecution of the civil war. Have I seen you out in front of the Lincoln Memorial protesting lately?

In other posts I have given a whole list of other presidents and how they have expanded the powers of the presidency beyond those granted by the Constitution. If we accept the "case law" built up over the years by every president since Washington, Bush is right in line with the real greats like Lincoln.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 7 (view)
 
The War On Democracy..
Posted: 8/24/2007 9:39:29 AM
ooops never mind. I see we just have another nazi anti semitic new world order spouting cartoon on our hands. lol You guys just slay me . . . I guess I shouldnt joke since that is precisely what you have in mind.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 6 (view)
 
The War On Democracy..
Posted: 8/24/2007 9:37:14 AM
who precisely is preventing this from being aired in the US? We see anti government medi all the time in this country. Michael Moore is a prime example. Why would Moore be allowed and this example disallowed. Please be more specific than just "rightwingimperialdeathsquadmobsters".
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Will The US Ever Get Her Constitution Back???
Posted: 8/24/2007 9:33:52 AM
The system just edited out part of what I had written regarding Hamilton, his birth name and his mother. What is missing is that all of this effort to twist his mothers name into Levine from Lavien, is yet another subterfuge because Lavien was her married name. He family name was Faucette.

The above was lost when I tried to edit some spelling errors. But it clearly shows the lack of veracity in your sources. And praytell why you are taking such pains to prove that he was jewish anyway? huh? why IS that? Please explain to the audience why you have distracted the issue to this seemingly meaningless turn?
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Will The US Ever Get Her Constitution Back???
Posted: 8/24/2007 9:14:05 AM

Rich and powerful people ( regardless of race) will always act in their own best interests,


no argument. They are humans and all humans, rich or poor, religious or atheist, tall or thin, educated or uneducated, political or uninvolved ALL act in their own self interest. I personally am not sure a purely charitable act exists. SO what is your point? That the rich are jsut liek you or I? I agree totally.


and will be on the same page without any secret conspiracy needed.


then why are some republicans and some democrats? Why are some jewish and some are cathiolic and some are mormon and on and on. Why are some charitable and some miserly. So we have another conspiracy theorist. great!


They live on the same planet, and breath the same rarefied air.


uhmmm what planet do you think that poor people live on? Middle class people? Please explain this idea for segregated air that you seem to have invented.


They go to the same schools, and are raised from birth in the manner of their parents.


Dont kids from a ghetto 'generally" all go to the same schools? Dont offspring of gangbangers "generally" grow up to be gangbangers? Again, I am not sure I see your point


In their view, there are two types of people. Them...and everyone else


Do poor people look at the world differently?Dont they see other poor people and then everyone else?


Guess where the money and power comes from ?


uhmm let me guess? Is it made in China? It comes from all kinds of different places. Bill Gates money didnt come from the same place Paris Hilton's money came from. Warren Buffet's money didnt come from the same place Tony Soprano's money came from.

Define rich and I will give you names of dead in that class.

lions? gazelles?

is this a line from wizrd of oz? Oh My!

In no nation are the lines between socio economic classes as porous as in this country. poverty is not a disease that can be cured. Communism tried and failed. The Democratic party says it will do it and never does it. Our working poor have a much higher standard of living than most. Those are the two things one can ask for on behalf of the poor in a nation. Low barrier to raising themselves and as high a standard of living as possible while they try and make it upwards. Is it fair? not my job to determine that. I deal with reality. Poor and rich are not absolutes. They are relative terms. Our poor are rich compared to the poor in India or Egypt. Is that "good"? I dont know but it is reality. Can we improve? Of course. I cant envision a state of existence that cant be improved.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Will The US Ever Get Her Constitution Back???
Posted: 8/24/2007 8:50:50 AM

There you go sound off to your shallow ankle deep research. LOL


You are right and I apologize. Since the source of of determining it was seven times removed was the quote which YOU provided, that is obviously a source that cannot be trusted. The sum total of research needed to determine 7 times removed was reading YOUR quote, which YOU provided and then counting to seven on my fingers. Luckily I didnt have to take off my shoes. I always get confused counting past ten. So you are right. Bad on me.

As for the rest I have provided documentation from mainstream sources, not slanted prejudiced diatribes that exist to satisfy anti semitic conspiracy theorists like yourself. I shouldnt need to repeat my sources in ever post. The original birth of Hamilton is recorded and the documents survive, they are referred to in either Ellis' book or Ron Chernow's. These are well known writers whose research skills are undisputed. As opposed to the Wikipedia and slimy writings you cite which twist facts to prove some international conspiracy to which you ascribe. Ellis and Chernow have no axe to grind. No agenda. They are mainstream writers anad this type of biography is what they do for a living. Thus his name was not changed to Hamilton later. It is how his name was recorded when he was born and it was how it was recorded when he died and it is the name he used all his life in between. And before you bring up again how Judaism is a matriarchal religion to throw out some facts to try and convince us that your twists of logic have some bearing, I know of no Jews who take their mother's name because of it. In fact biblical names all follow the father. ben David would be son of David. ben Hur was son of Hur (and no, Hur has no relation to "her")

Again, this is no debate. You provide no credible sources (I still cant believe you tried to pass off wikipedia as a source). You accuse me of not backing up what I say but I have given you the names of volumes sitting on my bookshelf that support what I am saying and they are actual credible sources, not arcane internet diatribes. They are all well known volumes by well known biographers without any agenda.

Rubbish? because it used reliable sources or because it shot your opinion to heck?

Superb sources? anti semitic diatribes? prejudiced writings?

I didnt pull any card. I play the hand which YOU dealt. YOU made the NWO reference. YOU brought intenrational cabals. YOU used Rothschild as if it was a curse instead of jsut a name. YOU cited a source that lies and twists facts to brand Hamilton a jew and a memeber of an international conspiracy when the "facts" it cites are ludicrous.

Who needs a dictionary? While you find it nmecessary to speak to the peanut gallery and point out what I mean when you admit I state it clearly, I merely respond to you and your words and your provided sources. I dont play to the non existent audience. I call you a liar to your face when you lie. I call you intellectually bankrupt when you use half truths and twits of logic to appear knowledgeable behind your coded words and concepts. I call you anti semitic when you take great paisn to prove that Hamilton was a jew when that was never an issue until you made it one. Spaking of which, I went back and looked and his mother's name was Lavien, presumably a frech spelling of Levine . . . but even if his birth was recorded under his mothers name, why would it be Levine instead of Lavien? Only one reason. Your source wanted it made abundantly clear to people who wouldnt think automatically in anti semitic terms as you would, that Hamilton was a Jew. So first he records the name incorrectly as his mothers, instead of his father's and then he incorrectly attributes his mothers name from the french to make sure no one would miss his main point. That Hamilton was of Jewish descent. I dont need a dictionary definition of anti semite to recognize you. Your code words and your sources reveal you quite clearly. This is akin to your deducing from his marriage to a society family that he must have been born rich. I would suggest you dont bring up a discussion of Israel again because you dont even know anything about your own country's history yet. No sense taking on another nation until you can intelligently dicuss your own. Go back and do some more homework, Adolph.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 61 (view)
 
If you believe in God why do you fear death?
Posted: 8/24/2007 8:08:26 AM

because he loves me like a Son.


and THERE is the answer to the original question. He loves us like a son and we ALL know how he treated his son.
I wasnt afraid before but now?
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 60 (view)
 
If you believe in God why do you fear death?
Posted: 8/24/2007 8:04:48 AM

Few people probably have that very close relationship with God.


Jeez I am having enough trouble finding that very close relationship with one Goddess from this site! Now I gotta worry about having a clsoe relationship with God too?
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 20 (view)
 
FBI to Turn In Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents
Posted: 8/24/2007 8:02:13 AM
NW you are a liar and you arent 1/10th as intelligent as you think you are. Hard currency is currency backed by specie, whether the specie is contained in the currency or sitting in Ft Knox backing it on a 1 to 1 ratio. That is what Bretton Woods provided. That is what I said. You keep trying to distract the conversation to these arcane details that dont matter in the context of the discusion. My reference to Bretton Woods was an obvious reference to currency backed by specie. but you had to try and take the whole train off the tracks by diverting the conversation from the many factual and inferrential inaccuracies and the broad stretches of logic you were foisting on us to get caught up in details that dont matter in the context. It would be like saying Batman is like the Green Hornet in a discussion of cartoon superheros and you hijack the whole meaning of the discussion to why they were different because of hair color and eye color. The details might be different but the fact is that in the context it was abundantly clear that Breton Woods was a reference to specie backed currency.Whether it was backed at a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 or 1/2 to 1 is not insignificant but in the context of the discussion at hand it made no difference. You just are trying to win debate points by subterfuge and nit picking details that you cant win by just being right. That is why you use wikipedia entries and arcane anti semitic tracts as "proof" of what you say and I manage to use mainstream texts. I dont make absurd statements like Hamilton marrying into the Rothschild family because of some seven times removed connection between the Schuyler family and the Rothschilds. I dont quote texts seeking to decry him as a member of some non existent jewish cabal by saying he was born a Levine when we know who his father was, the birth records still exist and his name is clearly given as Hamilton. You and the source have to twist things to try and make him out to be a jew to suit your world financial jewish plot hate speech and prejudices. God knows, AND WE ALL KNOW the facts dont prove it, only your hate and prejudice makes it even an issue. I buy stocks in which Goldman Sachs is a market maker. Does thia make me part your world Jewish financial cabal? Because millions of other people, jews, non jews, arabs who hate jews, even anti semites buy stocks in which Goldman Sachs is a market maker. This is akin to your calling someone seven times removed a Rothschild just so you can brand them part of your international jewish conspiracy. At least you have come out into the open enough to admit what you are when you use the"new world order" canard. Wanna show us your skin head and the swastika on your arm too? Can we watch you goose step for us? Maybe now that you have come out from behind the codewords and pretense of just being a loyal american who only wants what is good for the country and shown us what you truly are is an anti semitic, conspiracy spouting sicko hater, maybe someone will finally have a discussion with you that is out in the open where you can push for a return to Hitler's final solution and pure aryan race. But it wont be me. You make me sick.

as for my winning the debate? LOL it was SO over, LONG before I closed out with that self satisfying little jab.

Lastly, no one needs you to point anything out in my words. As you freely admit, my words are not couched in secret codes and emotionally charged red herrings. I speak plainly and besides, you are not well versed enough in what I am talking about to point things out for others. I was NOT referring to the iluminati as you suggest but the stonemasons who may or may not be related . . . but it doesnt matter. The point is that you cant possibly know what I am referring to, when I have to teach you your history so dont try and tell others what is in my head. Stick to the ravings inside that cesspool of your mind.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Will The US Ever Get Her Constitution Back???
Posted: 8/23/2007 9:35:48 AM
Poor huh? You are kidding right? Funny!

“Alexander Hamilton married into the Rothschild family December 14, 1780, Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler… [The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton, by Allan Hamilton 1910]


He was born to a man described as a "ne'er do well Scotsman" named James Hamilton. Please explain given that fact how he was born Alexander Levine? His mother WAS supposedly half jewish and may have been named Levine, I dont recall. His first and only marriage was to Elizabeth, the daughter of wealthy and politically prominent and powerful Phillip Schuyler. They were married after Hamilton had already started to make money and a name for himself as an attorney. The comment about his marrying a Rothschild apparently draws a connection SEVEN times removed from some (patroon)? tied to the Rothschild name lol You find some anti semitic cobbled together claptrap and use it as proof of someo nonsense? I repeat. You are morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest. To which I will now add anti semitic, paranoid of conspiracies and a McCarthyite. Only a disciple of McCarty would damn him for marrying someone seven times removed form the Rothschilds. As in, are you now or have you ever been a jew, a rothschild or a member of a financial cabal. And you infer indiously that there is something wrong with the Rothschilds. You throw that little anti semitic tidbit out there as if it is accepted and proper never mind that this only so in secret societies who blame the Jews for everything like proper little nazis.

Hamilton financed the war masterfully. The Rothschilds were PART of the European consortium put together to buy american bonds. But to anti semitic conspiracy theorists like you, that is the only name you will see. You are exposed for what you are. Now go crawl back under the rock you came out of.

You throw all of that cut and paste at us and 99% of it is not germane. You just pile so much garbage on here that it stinks and you hope we will think it is Hamilton who stinks when instead it is YOU who stink. You and your lies and prejudices, and your sources
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 17 (view)
 
FBI to Turn In Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents
Posted: 8/23/2007 8:57:42 AM

Well you made my point again.

you certainly like to jump to conclusions.


You are so intellectually dishonest you ought to be jailed. When I speak in generalities, you try and convince some fictitious audience in detail what I really mean (illuminatti). When I speak in specifics such as Bretton Woods, you whine that I am too specific and try to convince this imaginary following that some minute detail is wrong which i could avoided if I had been more general. You believe in currency backed by specie. Whether the Bretton Woods version or some other version. The details dont change the meaning of my words or the context of this discussion, tho obviously the details can be argued and do matter, just not in the context of this exchange. You just assail whatever I say and try and convince this fictious following you think you have of the secret hidden meanings and agendas behind my words. I dont need you to explain my words. I am quite capable of getting my meaning across as proven by the congratulatory messages I have gotten to my responses to you. Stop trying to win debate points and just spit out what you are trying to say.

Most of us lose our imaginary friends by the time we start school. You presumably are out of school and you have an imaginary throng!!
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
FBI to Turn In Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents
Posted: 8/23/2007 8:37:53 AM
For those who proudly procliam "I have nothing to hide", if a court has a reason to demand documents, somethings wrong.


Dd you read ANY of the article? Very first section says that the docs were requested NOT by the courts but by a partisan organization under freedom of info act. The court enforced the request. So you are wrong factually, if we are going off of what the article states as our source. I wont even get into the delicious irony of an indignant "patriot" forgetting all about innocent until proven guilty.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 12 (view)
 
FBI to Turn In Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents
Posted: 8/22/2007 12:27:00 AM
No but they do and your comment gives me the impression that you are purposefully here to spread disinformation.

For those who are unaware he is talking about the illuminati using a crude form of double-think to assign their habits to those of us who want fair government.

Thats not nice but I will give you the benefit of a doubt. For now.


Disinformation? lol Pot meet kettle. YOU are the on here laying all this crap on us. YOU are the one posting articles from questionable sources that no one will read or believe. YOU are the one spreading nonsense all over the place. YOU will give ME the benefit of the doubt? The only thing I want you to give me is a wide berth.

You twist and lie. I dont preach defeatism you pompous ass. Voting for a loser that cant win and thus cant effect change. THAT is defeatist you loser. I am done. You demonstrated your willingness to debate something you have no knowledge of on the other thread. This is America. You have that right. But I have the right to stop teaching you history. You repeatedly ask me to cite commonly known historical facts because of your ignorance. Come back when you have a clue and cant just try to win debate points instead of actually MAKING a point.

LOL citing wikipedia as a source of fact . . . you are a joke. A sad one but a joke. You have been a great big waste of my time today. I didnt take us anywhere. YOU brought up fiat currency and Breton Woods was the opposit of that. Thus my point. You are too damned ignorant to understand the phrases you throw around to impress us. You repeated fiat currency over and over but dont recognize the reference to Bretton Woods in its context. You obviously learned a new word in yoru wikipedia fantasy calls and so came here and used it over and over assuming we would be in awe of your use of the term fiat currency. Well I would be imprssed if you know what you were talking about instead of just throwing fancy words around. All I did was respond to yoru laughable points anad you accuse me leading things where I want? Your hubris is exceeded only by your lack of knowledge.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Will The US Ever Get Her Constitution Back???
Posted: 8/22/2007 12:09:15 AM
ok. lets tackle a lil more



The senate approved it.


So? How does that make it constitutional? Issue was that he didnt have the authority to add foreign land but he was engaged in secret negotiations because he was afraid of losing access to New Orleans. When the deal was expanded to include nearly 23% of current day US, he jumped on the deal and didnt wait for approvals. There was also an issue with hwo Gallatin arranged the bonds to pay for it I believe. No doubt related to another Rothschild cabal.


By refusing to renew their charter? How is that unconstitutional?


He wasnt given the power to do so by the constitution. He used a veto power previously unused. Prior to Jackson vetoes by the president were strictly on Consatitutional grounds. Jackson vetoed because he didnt like the bill. And he not only vetoed the bill but removed the governments deposits and fired a treasury secretary who refused to carry out the unconstitutional orders. Sounds Nixonian doesnt it? Remember Elliott Richardson? Placing the specie was another privilege held by the legislative branch and not the executive supposedly. Jackson was censured over this issue, a useless and toothless action but a rebuke nonetheless


That is simply not tru, not every president burned the constitution as you would like to imply.


actually I clearly said starting with Jefferson so without going into the rest you are wrong on the face of it.


Oh thats just boloney! It survived because it is inflexible and precisely worded to be taken literally within the context of the time in which it was written.


huh? is this tongue in cheek? It survives today 200 years after its creation because of how inflexible it is and because it is only literal in its own time? I choose to think this is a joke because I cant see how it could be serious. How could being literal in the context of 200+ years ago help it survive and be relevant today?



Sure just like bush and wilson, no one that I am aware of considers fdr a sacred cow.


You must not travel among many Democrats who worship his socialist behind.



Yeh because some of us know what goes on behind the scenes and have a darn good reason to hand wring.


so you say. From what I see here you dont know jack but ok.


So you want us to believe they can fvck this country up better than mainstream gw or billary? How?


look at nader's record for starters. Or just go back anad reread what I said since I answered this question in the original text.


Yeh its better just to chop up the constitution and be done with it. Where do you get this stuff from?


again, unlike you I believe the constitution more resilient. You have denied it but no one has ever threatened the Constitution as greatly as Lincoln did in suspending habeas corpus and it is still here and operational.


Not according to my history books, cite it please.


I believe I did so in my previous post so scroll up


The 2 party system is part of our government, The union of the states and the federal government.


huh? WTF are you talking about? The two party system refers to two politial parties. currently the Dems and Republicans. Where the heck did you come up with your definition? Neither the federal govt or the states are parties?!?




As far as political parties are concerned they just evolved as reps took sides based on what they felt best either more power to the states or to the feds. If you have information to the contrary please cite it.


I know teachers are not well paid but I am tired of doing their job for free. Lets see how many sources I can dig up crediting the two party system to the split of Washington's cabinet ie. Jefferson vs Hamilton and Adams . . .

4) Jay Treaty of foreign policy- the debate in 1794-1795 marked an important stage in the intensification and/or formalization of factional and party struggle (J.Charles,1961) As J.Charles argued, the Jay Treaty "altered party alignments and caused each group to close ranks" as a reaction of this debate, the losers made a coalition into the party they called Republicans and the conservatives did the same and coalesced into the Federalist Party. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported a pro-France line and Hamilton and Jay a pro-Britain policy and this was used as a symbolic issue to get support.

Republicans and Federalists clearly emerged as factions from within the Congress. After the term of George Washington, they became parties when they win the presidential election of 1796. Jefferson and Madison from the most populous state of Virginia, were the first to organize a national party and Massachusetts, the second most populous was to take the lead in forming the other party to keep the election out of the House. In 1796 two candidates Adams and Jefferson were personalities around whom the parties formed. The 12th Amendment was a constitutional recognition of political parties . It specified that Electoral College would case separate ballots for president and vice-president and that each require a majority of the electors to win.

The Democratic-Republican Party, also known as the Republican Party (not related to the present-day Republican Party), was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792

Foreign policy issues were central; the party opposed the Jay Treaty of 1794 with Britain (then at war with France) and supported good relations with France before 1801

The party which assumed to itself the exclusive title of democratic was made up of many heterogeneous materials. It had been organized, in the first instance, as an opposition to the administration of Washington, on the questions of the proclamation of neutrality and the ratification of Jay’s treaty

Need I go on? The issue at the core of the split was France or England. The Jay treaty. All foreign policy. Altho you are right they differed over states rights and the national bank.

Enough lessons for tonight. You do some homework next time and dont just make me pile on all of this background info for you.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Will The US Ever Get Her Constitution Back???
Posted: 8/21/2007 7:18:21 PM

Slavery was the way of the times.


nuh uh. that old crap doesnt wash. Hamilton, Franklin, Jay, Rush and others were already strong abolitionists and fought for "that perfidious condition" to be ripped from the land. Jefferson and his landed gentry of the southern plantation society whose lifestyle depended on slaves fought it. The compromise was that slavery was protected for a specific number of years. This was a deal with the devil made in the backrooms and caused Franklin and Hamilton to give at best tepid approval and at worst to lament the missed opportunity.

Jefferson's words had nothing to do with forthought. Your attempts at twisting this are laughable. I can recommend an extensive reading list if you want to know how the words were cobbled together and what was notably left out to appease southern elitists.

Try treading:

Catherine Drinker Bowen's. Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787

Kaminski's A Necessary Evil?: Slavery and the Debate of the Constitution

Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson:A Study in Character by Roger Kennedy

Henretta, James A. The Evolution of American Society, 1700-1815: An Interdisciplinary Analysis

let me know if you need more.


Doesnt sound too poor to me if he was connected to the rothschilds and the financial cabal.


Why am I even discussing this with you? You just google some wikipedia entry on the stonemasons and Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo and explain everything with catchwords like cabal and conspiracy. This is useless. If you dont know that Hamilton was born DIRT poor in the caribean and worked his way up in a trading house which he ran in his teens in the absense of his employer, that he made his own way into college and was Washington's most trusted and brilliant aide in the war and secretary during hsi administrations, why am I even bothering to waste my time on this? The myths anad slander you are citing is the result of a newspaper article that came out in a paper that Jefferson secretly funded. Unlike Jefferson he did not inherit his wealth and was never "rich" despite your suppositions. But at least his state of New York didnt raise 100K upon his death to pay his debts from extravagant living beyond his means as Virginia did with Jefferson.

Let's try this quickie cut and paste from a book named Poison Quills :

[bold]The Founding Fathers claimed to be above party politics, but the country divided into quarreling factions within years of independence. Both the federalists and republicans had their infamous scribblers, and sometimes they got help from the higher reaches of power. Jefferson commiserated with Washington over press smears but, as Mr. Burns notes, "what Jefferson did not say, what he would never admit . . . was that, while serving in Washington's administration, he had been secretly and shamefully polluting [press coverage], doing so for his own ends, which were seldom the same as the president's."

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. In the end, Jefferson's own reputation was soiled by one of his hired hacks. Of all his faction's scribblers, none was more infamous than James Thomson Callender, an itinerant Scots pamphleteer who published some private letters of the federalist Alexander Hamilton involving adultery and blackmail--letters that reached Callender's hands from a crony of the republican James Madison. When Jefferson was elected president and Callender demanded a postmastership as reward, Jefferson snubbed him. Callender sought revenge, revealing Jefferson's role as his past patron and going public with the Sally Hemings story, alleging that Jefferson had sired **stards with his slave housekeeper.

Outraged denials followed, and a disgraced Callender died soon after, found face-down in Richmond's James River. But as Mr. Burns writes: "DNA testing would reveal that our nation's third president had almost certainly fathered several children with a Hemings, and that Sally was the only likely candidate. James Thomson Callender's maliciously intended journalism . . . was in this case factual as well."[/bold]


Cite this please

presumably you accept the part about being against centralized power prior to his being elected prez and want me to support my statement that he expanded the power of the the office beyonnd the constitutional powers? Let's look . . .

[bold]This treaty must of course be laid before both Houses, because both have important functions to exercise respecting it. They, I presume, will see their duty to their country in ratifying & paying for it, so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their power. But I suppose they must then appeal to the nation for an additional article to the Constitution, approving & confirming an act which the nation had not previously authorized. The constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. [/bold]

from a letter by Jefferson to John C Breckenridge--

[bold]I confess, then, I think it important, in the present case, to set an example against broad construction, by appealing for new power to the people. If, however, our friends shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce with satisfaction; confiding, that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce ill effects.[/bold]

You can see in this excerpt of a letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas that he is willing to rely on the "good sense of the country" to distinguish between HIS broad construction and someone else's EVIL broad construction.

I really cant do this any longer. Point by point you just go find quotes to support you and have no breadth of knowledge to know the underlying story. You see Rothschild in a story with Hamilton's name and asssume Hamilton is a rich man. You cite long disproven conspiracy theories and slader as supporting your silly statements. As much as I love this period of time I cant spend hours more showing you why your quotes are sopurrious or digging up background for you which you dont possess on the subject.

Deal with what I have put together so far and if I am up to it later I will address more of this post.

thanks for understanding
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 10 (view)
 
FBI to Turn In Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents
Posted: 8/21/2007 6:16:26 PM

The ends does not justify the means.
This is a Constitutional Republic, not the Soviet Union.


Sure it does . . . sometimes. Preservation of the union and eliminating slavery justify the temporary subversion of the constitution Lincoln employed by suspending habeas corpus. At the time it was almost unanilous that the Louisiana Purchase was justified despite expanding the power of the presidency beyond what the constitution provided.


I'm not 'comparing' these acts to anyone.
Some of his 'executive orders' and acts as the 'Patriot Act' is unprecedented, especially in as far as the lies about Iraq and WMD to promugate this conduct and passage of these bills.


I am so tired of hearing poor intel called lies by partisan wonks. Joe Wilson sitting around a pool in Niger does not make intel agreed to by the world's major intel services and every major player on the world stage, a lie. It just isnt so. Wilson had ulterior motives as his goal was to run for Congress and he was doing everything to keep his face on the TV. He screwed poor Val and his kids over and then blamed it on everyone but the face in the mirror. And yes, I do speak from personal knowledge.

By my count Bush gave the country seven reasons for entering Iraq and yet all we ever hear is WMD. That is the media taking the easy, sensational story, not the administration pushing WMD. Granted that is the reason that resonated with the people and so it was pushed disproportionately.

Accuse all you want. Feel better now? You can always write a letter to the New York Times like Joe did. But you had better be damned sure your wife is of the quality of Val because a lesser woman would have left Joe's sorry ass for what he did to her and her kids.


He and his administration should be prosecuted for violations of our Constitution and for war crimes.
For allowing this nation to invade a sovereign nation based on lies and half truths resulting in over 3000 service members dead and 100,000's of Iraqi's.
Without so even as a Declaration of War by Congress as precribed by our Constitution.
Because they don't obey neither our Constition or our own laws.
They simply make some up to promugate their own conduct.
Or spend half their time trying to circumvent it.


Since you are either a lawyer or slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, please tell me EXACTLY the charges. This means you can cite chapter and verse of the law broken in each of these instances. No grand jury is gonna accept the fluff you wrote here as an accusation. What law did he break? Congress voted their approval for his prosecution of the war. We havent had a Declaration of War in the last how many wars? He DID have the authority given him by Congress. Elsewhere I gave a list of other administrations who have subverted the Constitution and you just brushed it aside. Have you been picketing the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials to protest their subversion of the Constitution? I guess if it doesnt back up your misghuided point, it doesnt deserve a response. Well in like manner if you can do more than piss and moan, if you cant tell me what law he broke, YOU dont deserve a response either.

What is it about the Patriot Act you dont like? What is unprecedented? I mean if Lincoln could suspend habeas corpus, what about the patriot Act is so objectionable? Dont give me the boogy man approach of just saying Patriot Act like it is something scary. Dont make a vague reference to "executive orders" You gotta do better big boy. You cant just wave your arms and make these vague references and scare the populace. What is unconstitutional about the Patrot Act? Which of his executive orders are illegal? If you are big and bad enough to take on the president like Joe WIlson, be as specific as him and tell us what it is you think is illegal. You are real good at throwing around emotionally charged terms like brown shirts and thugs but at least go google the issue and copy down some of the specific charges other folks have made.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 9 (view)
 
FBI to Turn In Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents
Posted: 8/21/2007 5:49:32 PM

Big finance is a simple term for federal reserve and yes if there was a comparison to be made I would agree that local banking and the use of hard currency is definitely warm and fuzzy by comparison.

If you do not or cannot see the economical crisis this country is in as a result of debt or fiat currency then you must not be aware that fiat currency historically fails and I have not seen anything in the hopper to prevent that from happening to the us. If you do please cite it and elaborate on the benifits of a fiat money system..


I understood what you meant, I just am always amused at the spooky, scary sounding names used. VAST right wing conspiracy . . . military industrial complex . . . big finance . . . fiat money system. You guys have a secret handshake to go alomng with all those codewords? If I eat enough tofu and organic milk can I get a decoder ring? All sorts of archaic things sound warm and fuzzy . . . malt shoppes, getting pinned, big fins on cars, gulping goldfish, savings accounts. Before you start throwing these huge numbers around to really scare us, the debt level as a percentage of GDP is at historic norms. Any other measure is useless. And if you think you can undo the global economy we are in in order to take us back to the Bretton Woods standard you are just being humorous again. As in to think you can do so is a joke. There are very few Royal Bank of Scotland situations or Austrian Economists running around these days. So while I am sure you get a warm fuzzy feeling from sounding important with all of these highfalutin ideas thrown around, the reality is that they are just so much hot air. The world has moved on. You and your loony fringe third party ers can come along with us or join the Society for creative anachronism and go to renaissance fests to reminisce about the good old days when a haunch of mutton didnt cost but a farthing.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 120 (view)
 
Got a fake diamond ring from fiance, he lied and said it was a 3 carat, 30,000 dollar ring!
Posted: 8/21/2007 5:32:35 PM

WOW…now that confirms what I have always believed that most Lawyers are scum bags…


Gee thanks, It has ben at least ten minutes since someone stereotyped lawyers. Personally I have always thought everyone named Mark was a scumbag. Now it is confirmed. Makes just as much sense as your stereotype.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 8 (view)
 
FBI to Turn In Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents
Posted: 8/21/2007 4:32:38 PM

I was not aware the delete button was intended to be used to get rid of anything you "disagree" with. If everyone thought like that I would suggest putting up a keep button to counter your emotional actions.


I daresay there are many things of which you are unaware. WHich makes it all the more humorous that you think you DO know things you cant possibly know like my motives. I had my reasons and gave my reasons for suggesting a deletion of yoru post and, I am sure you will be shocked to learn that my disagreeing with it wasnt on the list.


Vote wasting? Making claims like that do nothing more than to perpetuate the problems we have in this country.

To the contrary if you do not like the 2 parties do not vote for the best of 2 evils vote for the third as a protest vote which serves to either bring the 2 parties in line with the people or lose the office to a third party. If you are unhappy with 3 parties vote for the 4th to bring the 3 back in line.

Politicians are vote counters and you aer way off course on this one and simply incorrect.

We have 50% of the people in the us simply do not vote. If they wanted to make their vote seriously count they would all march into the polls and vote 3rd party and watch the political climate change literally over night in this country but your kind of defeatist philosophy is doing more to destroy the republic process than many politicians who simply do their own thing.


making such a claim does no more to perpetuate the problem than voting for a party/candidate that cannot win. While I agree that if you believe in someone you should vote for them no matter the outcome, I dont believe in voting for a third party jsut because it is not the first two. That is moronic IMO. Yes politicians are vote counters and that is why they dont fear third party candidates. That is precisely why voting for a no chance caandidate is a waste of a vote in terms of effecting a change. The 50% who dont vote got that way by not voting. Duh! 50% could walk in and change the climate overnight by voting for anyone they choose, but they CHOOSE not to vote. So your point is as valid as saying that if gas cost 50 cents a gallon it would be a boon to the economy. That is factually correct but the odds of it happening are so infinitesimal, I dont have the time to worry about the consequences.


Ok so you are disgruntled that you made poor choices in your beliefs and they did not live up to your expectations. Like the republicrats do? So now you flip entirely around rather than put it in context? Your party of choice betrayed you so now you are out to axe them.

Like it or not the libertarian party is the closest thing we have to a constitutional party regardless if I agree with all their short comings as imo the constitution is the highest priority in a republican form of government and all else evolves around the priviledges we granted to our government not the other way around.

You think the 2 parties have a clue of the ramifications or really care for that matter? They put us on a fiat money system that is known to fail time and time again. They knew it then and they know it now. By all means elaborate on all these wonderful achievements.


Once again you think you can look into your crystal ball and know me or my thoughts and motivations. I am not gruntled at all. I didnt make the wrong choice. The voters did I am disappointed my choices did not win but I do not throw my efforts away in a quixotic life as a result. For what it is worth, the three candidates I have worked for came from two different parties. I am disappointed with the parties as I feel neither of them is currently standing for the things they have classically stood for. A classic Republican has little place to sit at the Republican table and that is no different on the Democratic side. But just as I would never abandon my country because I have problems with it, I dont see the need to leave my party instead of working to move it back where I think it should be. But the way to do so IMO is not to move my money, time and vote to a weak sister than rarely if ever affects the policy or elections of this country. You have it all wrong, My candidates did not fail me. and I did not flip on them and I am not out to axe them. In fact in each case I stuck with them and continued to raise money to pay off their campaign debts. I dont understanad the meaning of all this line.

I am a member of the Oxford Club and have heard Harry speak often in person. The public line of the Libertarian Party is attractive in the same way that a college kid full of revolution and mind like a sponge absorbs new ideas is enthralled by Ayn Rand or Che'. He has to mature and enter the new world to realize it is always advantageous to be able to be AGAINST everything without having to explain what you are for. Simple matter to write a book and criticize but a much different thing to be in the shoes of someone who holds in his hands millions of lives hinging on every decision he makes. There is a certain minimum level of competency ensured by the status quo. Radical change in a system as complex as the US government is a dangerous thing.

Again with all this breast beating about the Constitution. As I have said ad infinitum, it is a rsilient document and seems to be flexible enough to stretch to fit the circumstances. There is nothing planned, envisioned or conceivable that sould be a greater and more fundamental blow to the constitution than Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and the republic and the constitution survived. But it does make for nice political theatre to voice your fears with such sturm und drang.

Achievements? Start with the most basic which you ignore so blithely. We are still here. The constitution is still intact. It and the nation have survived . That is no small feat. And having some looney fringe player in the white house endangers that streak.

Do the two parties know the ramifications? Of course!! Why do you think they promise things and then never deliver? Because they know two things. What to promise to get elected adn which of those promises they can never deliver on because of the very ramifications you say they dont understand. It is the lunatic fringe like Perot who are scary. He would actually try and deliver on the goofy things he promised and that would have been disastrous for the country. Is this cynicism healthy? Probably not but it is a fact of life.

Luckily we went down the path Alexander Hamilton paved for us and not that of Jefferson. We became a capitalist society instead of the elitist agrarian land based society Jefferson sought. Hamilton wanted upward mobility and power in the hands of the mercantile middle class. Luckily he won out through just plain being right every time he butted heads with Jefferson.


Like any group, they all stand for something and I certainly do not buy into everything that the libertarian group stands for. However as I said they are the closest party or group that we have that I am aware of that are grass roots constitutionalists. The 70 year figure well maybe closer to 100 years would be more accurate where the country took a definite shift.


the turn came the day Jefferson ascended to the presidency. He was the first president who sidestepped the Constitution (wiith the help of one of its main architects) to expand the powers of the presidency beyond that intended under the constitution . . . so try a couple hundred years.


Exactly how does one ignore the constitution to undo an unconstitutional act?


sory I went for a clever turn of a phrase over clarity. The formation of the Bank of the United States was arguably accomplished without the authority for its formation being granted by the Constitution. Jackson compunded the assault on the constitution by destroying the Bank using powers reserved for officers other than the president. Hope that clarifies. I shouldnt try to be witty at the expense of being clear.

Low battery on laptop. will finish in a while
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 12 (view)
 
The MidEast's only democracy? Israel attacks peaceful demonstators
Posted: 8/21/2007 1:41:23 PM
I do so tire of trying to get one single point across to you people!

Can you not understand the physical difference between men, cultures and ethnicities of the old world.?


this is YOUR problem. Dont foist it off on me. I understand the difference but it has no meaning in the context of the discussion. I could just as easily say radishes are a root vegetable and that proves I am right in this discussion. Take your blinders off and try to see that just because YOU want to couch this discussion in your lies and myths doesnt restrict me from opening the windows and letting the fresh air of truth and fact into the room.

Can you not understand the physical difference between men, cultures and ethnicities of the old world.?

If Mahatma Gandhi stood in front of you and said that he was an Englishman, what would be wrong with the picture?

If Mao Zedong, no lets change that to Kim Jong -iI (you'll be able to picture him better), stood in front of you and said he was an Italian, what would be wrong with the picture?

If Nelson Mandela stood in front of you and said he was Swiss, what would be wrong with the picture?

Don't you get it? Europeans cannot pass themselves off as Western Asian in origin. Western Asia is old world, it's not new world like Canada or Australia where people from all races, ethnicities from all over can come together as one. So naturally the native Palestinians and Jews are going to be hostile towards them


no one is trying to pass themselves off as anything!?! If Nelson Mandela wanted to be swiss, all he has to do is apply for swiss citizenship. If he gets it, he is swiss!! You are trying to drag dna and race into this. As I pointed out to you before, Sammy Davis Jr was Jewish. Is that any more outlandish than the scenarios you give? If so I miss the difference. I cannot be an afro american. Sammy Davis Jr could not be a caucasian or a semite. But either of us can be a jew or a catholic or swiss or English or Italian as that is a legal matter of citizenship or a religious matter of belief and choice, not an issue of race or DNA. Your point just makes no sense. It is this ignorance and one track mind and wearing of blinders that fuels your bigotry and hatred. You seem to believe that there are no black swiss citizens or asian italian citizens or Indian citizens of Great Britain, when in fact there are examples of each of these.


As for your argument that a Jew from the 6th century who migrates to Europe but whose offspring remain Jewish throughout time , is just crazy. But it does conform to Zionist belief which states "once a Jew' always a Jew" even in Atheism. Your other premise that Judaism demands a homeland.


Again you make up things that prove your point and ignore the falacy in your definitions and thoughts. My being a Jew has nothing to do with any person from the 6th century. I have a friend who was catholic all of her life, raised and lived as one. She has converted to Judaism by the laws of the faith governing such matters and she is a Jew. It matters not one whit what her 6th century ancestors were or what her mother and father were. You are confusing the Israeli secular legal issue of the right of return with religious talmudic law. Since a practicing catholic can become a jew, why cant the descendants of Jews for centuries remain a jew if their belief and traditions are those of the faith? I totally fail to see any point you are making here that is germane.
And again, Zionism deals with the establishment of the state of israel as a homeland for the Jews. It has nothing to do with a jew remaining a jew. That is ludicrous. If I renounce my religion, Israel accepts that I am no longer a jew. What it does protect, and what you are apparently referring to, albeit twisting almost beyond recognition, is the right of return established by the State of Israel saying that I can always come back. This is not a function of religious talmudic law, it is a function of the state, although the state and the religion are obviously intertwined.


By your own analogy, all Catholics have the right to abode in the Vatican/Rome. All Anglicans have the right to abode in London, England. Along with these new rights for Catholics and Anglicans, they also have the right to expel all the local populations from those cities/lands, to generally cause mayhem, death and destruction and destablise the entire world.


NOt at all. I am not aware of anything remotely like the right of return in Catholic dogma. I am not aware of the Vatican being set up as a homeland for Catholics, merely a worldly seat of power for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did all of the things you describe for centuries. Of course it was a totally stabilizing power, albeit through absolutely corrupted tyrany. You make a habit of spewing your filth out and ignoring the arguments already made against the nonsense you believe. The source of Israel's creation was the UN. It was established by UN mandate which gives it as much legitimacy as any other means, be it conquest or squatters rights. Were there Zionist terrorists? It is a matter of semantics to the same extent that the patriots of the Revolutionary War who threw tea into Boston Harbor and fired on Redcoats at Lexington and Concord were terrorists to the Brits and heroes to the Colonists. Did Israel dislocate Palestinians? Absolutely. But again you ignore the damning fact that the vast majority of what came to be the Palestinian refugees left at the urging of the neighboring Arab leaders who urged them to leave and assured them they could go back to their homes after the overwhelming arab forces drove the jews into the sea. You conveniently ignore all of these arguments because you wear blinders and seem obsessed with this issue of lineage which has no bearing on the current state of israel.


Ahhhhh.................GOTCHA!


huh? what are you talking about? I said no European would call themselves indigenous. You of course in your insincere way ignored the rest of my point. The reason they would not refer to themselves as such is that indigenous as a word has been given a negative connotation by its use in Colonial British days. You conveniently neglect to include that part, taking a snippet of what I said out of context. Even so . . . what does being indigenous have to do with anything? Your "east asians" invaded Europe under Alexander the Great and his Macedonian armies. SO what? What bearing does that have on anything? Europeans shoved over the native Americans. They are ugly chapters but they are fact and no one is gonna get anywhere by saying that America should give the land back to the Native Americans, who by the way came over the Bering Strait and were indeed asians themselves so perhaps they should leave to and give it back to the buffalo? Absurd? Absolutely. Just like your pointless rant about "indigenous".


So you admit after all that KaKa, that Europeans do not belong in Palestine. Are not native to that land. YES!


No, and no. Where did I say Europeans dont belong in Palestine? I would never say that since there is no Palestine and one only existed for a very short time in history. Are not native to the land? No they arent, so what? Either are the semites if we believe that all human life originated in africa as science currently believes. Finally I see where you are TRYING to take this. You feel that the land belongs to the indigenous population. That is hilarious. Again, science seems to currently largely agree that all human kind began in Africa so who is the "indigenous population" of the rest of the land? The right of Israel is not based in the tracing back of its roots to 600 BC or any other date in time. It is based in the UN mandate. The issue of Judea and Israel of ancient times is only germane when refuting the claims that the Palestinians were there first. No actually they werent. But that is all sophistry. The factual right of Israel to exist is based one on the UN mandate and two its power to maintain its existence in the face of irrational, fantic hatred.


Well, there you go! Signed sealed and delivered. No reason for me or anyone else going any further. You admit on how Zionists see the local native population of Jews and Palestinians.


Who ties your shoes in the morning? I know you cant do it. I say there is no longer anything such as a zionist. So there is no way I could "admit on" a zionist doing anything, since they dont exist, prima facie based on the definition of the word. What I admit on is that you are intellectually bankrupt. I clearly state that the British gave a negative connotation to the word and you twist my words to somehow mean that current day Isralis use the word to describe locals? You lie as naturally as Clinton or Arafat. Israelis arent perfect. They have treated Ethiopian Jews horribly. But there are no zionists, no europeans. There are Israelis and Palestinians. There are Jews and Moslems. You lie and twist words into meanings no one could recognize. You confuse Israeli secular law with Jewish Talmudic religious law . . . and it is charitable to say confuse as I believe you intentionally twist these words to win debate points.

You are damn right there is no reason for you to go any further because your bigotry and your hate and your lies and your intellectual dishonesty have been exposed.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 53 (view)
 
How long to call
Posted: 8/21/2007 12:07:52 PM

Inkwell - she knew of the missing phone. Yes, traffic is a factor, which we all know in advance. So if you have a date planned, would you not factor traffic in as a possibility? I do.

She apologized, which is why I went through the date, but it rang a tad hollow. "tee hee, oops I'm late!" She didn't have a good reason.

I always give people the benefit of the doubt but your implying that I'm partly at fault because I lost my cell phone is assinine, particularly since she knew about it in advance. I gave her my home number and told her to call if she needed to cancel. I was at home up to an hour before the date.

Really, the last thing I need is to date a woman who I need to make excuses for.


I didnt mean to make it your fault, I merely meant that no cell phone in this day and age is a possible excuse, or at least mitigation of fault on her part. Obviously anyone can lose or break or forget their cell phone. But just the same, anyone can be delayed or run late.

You dont need to make excuses for her but it is obvious that you are seeking reasons not to date her again instead of erring on the side of giving her another chance. You are making a major sin out of a minor transgression. I think you dont want to date her again and this is your rationale. which is fine.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Will The US Ever Get Her Constitution Back???
Posted: 8/21/2007 10:13:47 AM

I can't say as I blame people, especially Americans, for that decline.

To me (personal opinion) , it started with JFK being cut down. After that, and the other murders of those who carried that flame of hope, it seems America started down a side road.

Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Irangate....too many things to mention, all coming like dominoes falling towards you.


what you decry started way before that. See the list I provided above


The nobility and value of politicians corrupted and tarnished by attack ads.... The oh-so-obvious self-interest of all parties....


Again, look to Mr Jefferson. He financed newspapers for the sole purpose of slandering George Washington while Jefferson was sitting on his cabinet. Jefferson gave us the two party system and dirty politics and attack ads. Like most of the constitution, it isnt that this was original thought on Jeffersons part, It all existed before. But he raised it to a higher level. He was the slime bucket who sat in the room staring Washington in the face while financing newspapaer attacks and organizing opposition to the most universally revered preident and possibly man in American history. The one president who did more to limit the power of his office than to expand it.

So again, I say that the consititution has survived indignities far worse than those to which it is currently subjected and survived just fine thank you.



The cunning use of fear to control peoples minds....


look at how FDR got us into WWII long before Pearl Harbor . . . watch cold war era bomb shelter ads lol

all that you list predates the 60s easily.


There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America.

- William J. Clinton


I feel your pain. I am not willing to actually do anything about it but I do feel it.
- William J Clinton when the cameras werent running
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 11 (view)
 
The MidEast's only democracy? Israel attacks peaceful demonstators
Posted: 8/21/2007 9:48:22 AM

Oh dear.........out of the mouth of babes!


at least babes have an excuse for being ignorant of the subject.



All Zionists are not indigenous to Palestine, they are all new immigrants.


There is no such thing as a zionist. This is your attempt to use emotionally charged words to gain the moral high ground through sophistry


The so-called diaspora of the Jews (fact or fiction), is alleged to have occurred in the 6th century BC. Jewish belief, not mine


again you use words you dont understand and thus use them incorrectly. The diaspora did not OCCUR on any one date. It BEGAN them with the Babylonian destruction of the temple, and the removal of much of the jewish population from their homeland. The diaspora refers to the entire period of time when the descendants of those jews were detached from their homeland. So it ended only in 1948.


If you believe that the offspring of, lets say a Jewish man that left Palestine in the 6th century BC and settled in say Poland, and then intermingled with the local people for 2,500 years, thats 2,500 years, do you believe that those offspring are still Jewish!


I will try to patiently correct your mistakes but really you need to try harder to be factual and stop perpetuating these hateful stereotypes and myths. A man who was forced out of his homeland 2500 years ago would not be very likely to have settled in Poland since Poland didnt exist. It also took centuries of the catholic church driving Jews out of one catholic european nation after another for the great waves of Jewish settlements in Poland and Russia to occur. But forgetting for the moment your mistakes and ignorance of the subject, lets turn to your question specifically. If he had ended up in poland 2500 years ago, would his descendant still be Jewish? That depends. If they survived centuries of Catholic persecution and inquisition to convert him. If he survive the Nazi concentration camps. If he survived over zealous crusaders, White russian pogroms, the black plague . . . would he still be jewish? Yeah if he believed. Just like an afro american Sammy Davis Jr is jewish, any other convert to the religion and millions of others who believe and observe the laws and traditions of the religion. What you are trying to do is make judaism a matter of DNA and lineage when it is a religion. Again you fall into the hate speech and twisted verbiage of the radical political elements who keep their own people suffering in order to serve their own political purposes.


Lets not for get that Judaism is a matriarchal religion not a patriarchal one. Jewish law, not mine. [/quote}

God, your ignorance is insidious. First, what difference in the context of the nonsense you are spewing would matriarchal vs patriarchal have on the succession of descendants of a fictional 6th century jew taken to Babylon? The succession is the issue you are trying, to no real avail, to make. You throw out these snippets in some stream of conscience manner with no point to them. YOU conveniently confuse jewish with semitic and them dont want US to confuse matriarchal anad patriarchal? Is there any point to be gleaned from your ramblings?


I have no feelings of "bigotary" or "prejudice" for any of the many Asian nations, cultures or religions that make up continental Asia. But I dislike it when Europeans invade, refer to themselves as "indigenous", disperse local populations, course untold misery and hardship and destabilise the region and in turn the world.


AHhh now we come to the crux of the matter. Your objections are only to europeans jews doing it? Gehghis Khan trying to take over the world didnt bother you because he was an asian and you have no bigotry or prejudice for asians. But you do object to europeans jews "invade" . . . because you admit your prejudice and biogotry against them? lol stop listening to Steely Dan. Your pretzel logic is messing up your brain. Your use of the word invasion is also loaded since the state of israel was created by the UN not by an invading force. Once the UN created the state, Jewish forces defended it. I admit this is a thin and merely legal distinction hower. I have never heard any Israeli call himself indigenous. That is a word that has insulting connotations imparted to it by British Colonial days demeaning locals as "IP", indigenous poulation. It was a more polite way of saying "wog". I cant imagine any European calling himself indigenous. As to who dispersed the local population, let's not forget that while Israel in its early day did displace Palestinians, many many more were urged to leave by the surrounding arabs telling them they could come back to their homes after they had driven the jews into the sea. The region has been de stabilized by the arab nations refusal to accept the fact that is Israel and acknowledge its existence. It has been destabilized by war after war all started by Israels arab neighbors. It is destabilized by terrorists and the states that support them. Israel fights merely to exist. It has never invaded its neighbors except in the course of a war it did not start itself. It has never sought to eliminate or destroy its neighbors. Its existence was effected by an international body, the UN. Israel absorbed many times the Jews from Baghdad, Amman and Tehran as there were original Palestinian refugees who were rejected by their fellow Palestinians. The ONLY group of refugees in the post war period to still not be settled and taken in by their own. Under pressure from Clinton, Israel gave in on most of the PLO demands and when it looked like there was a deal to be made, Arafat declared Intifadah to maintain the destabilized state of affairs. He could have come to the table and tried to gain further concessions, although he had offered nothing and Israel had conceded much. But he and the radical political part of the Palestinians do not want peace. They do not want stability. They do not want economic progress for their people. They want one thing and one thing only. Total destruction of Israel and the Jews. THAT fanaticism and THAT intransigence is what is the source of instbaility in the region. Intifadah is not solely against the state of Israel; it targets civilians and so seeks to kill Jews AND the state of Israel. At the brink of peace it is constantly the Palestinians who erupt in violence to prevent peace adn stability and prosperity for their own. Israel's "crime" is it's very existence. Sorry Charlie . . .
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 10 (view)
 
The MidEast's only democracy? Israel attacks peaceful demonstators
Posted: 8/21/2007 9:02:36 AM

Wow.......never read such crap in all my life!!


Ahh I see you have reread your own post.


You have some very serious issues to discuss with your therapist "inkwell".


Yes, I know. This problem I have insisting in insisting on only dealing with facts instead of fantasy when engaged on these forums is something I need to bring up with a therapist


I don't for one minute believe that anyone, including the indigenous Jews and Palestinians, would have any problems cohabiting peacefully in Palestine. They have after all been doing it for thousands of years. All these problems only started after the arrival of European immigrants. A trickle at first, but followed by floods after 1948.


So basically what you are saying that you can stand having a few jews around as long as they are a weak fragmented minority and dont seek a land to call their own or establish a power base of their own. This is pretty similar to the views of the Catholic Church in European nations that one after another invited Jews in to strengthn the economies and then kicked them out and stole their land and wealth. I see now.


The Israel/Palestine issue was acknowledged by Prime Ministers Blair (rtd), of Great Britain and Howard of Australia as the crux of all the problems of the ME and the reason that Arab terrorism has been exported around the world.


yes but unlike you they dont blame Israel for it. There are a dozen arab nations in the region. They cant stand the presence of one Jewish nation. The arab nations got all the oil and farmable lands. Israel was a desert until the Jeewis state was formed. Isnt Jordan 87%+ Palestinian? Sounds like they HAVE their homeland. Why do they object to the Jews having theirs?


You seem to forget that according to Jewish and Palestinian history, they both believe that they are the children of the one man "Abraham". That they are blood cousins is a fact of DNA testing. They believe that Jehovah/Allah, sent Abraham from Persia (Iran), to the land of Canaan and they sprouted from that one man. A common belief amongst the native Jews/Palestinians that the European immigrants have tried ti dispel.


What is your point? are you trying tomake MY case? If we are "cousins" and "brothers" why do the Palestinians and arabs in general hate us, dedicate their lives to "driving the Jews into the Sea" and refuse us a presence in their midst? The Jews came to this land, their homeland, the land of their ancestors, from which they were forcibly removed by rulers from Babylonian days to Roman days to Crusader days. Their "cousins" waged war upon them. The land was bought with Rothschild money and given them by the international community. It was defended from attackers with Jewish blood. After decades of constant war, I grant you that they had provocation in that the state of israel was forced on them. But the state of Israel is a fact and their continued poverty and sad condition is a result of the element who will not give up the fight and accept facts for what they are. Israel is the only salvation of the Palestinian people. Their Arab "brothers" are willing to arm them for their own political purposes but only in Israel can the Palestinians find the means to make Gaza and the West Bank viable economic and political homes for its Palestinian inhabitants. Israel doesnt want those areas. It needs them to exist for the Palestinians for their own survival. It cannot annex millions of Paelstinians into its borders or it ceases to exist as a Jewish State. SO it WANTS and NEEDS viable Palestinian lands there. But it cant do so while they continue to be dedicated solely to the destruction of Israel and all Jews even to the detriment of its own people. DNA has nothing to do with it. Hatred does.


As for the Zionists. NO they are not fiction. YES they are real. They are usually of the European immigrants and began their political agitations whilst still in Europe. In the 1930's this political group even attempted a treaty with the Nazis but it was outrightly rejected by Hitler. The Zionist are purely political and also Atheist. The founding fathers of modern Israel are all Zionists. Prior to 1948 and immediately after 1948, it was the Zionists that carried out all of Israel's terrorist acts and across border assassinations of foreign political opponents.


I never said they were fiction. I said it is an emotional term that has no meaning any more. Zionism is the support of the creation of a Jewish Homeland in what is now Israel. It has been established. Therefore to support its creation has no meaning. It is just an emotionally charged word thrown out by those too ignorant to understand its meaning. It would be like calling natives of the western half of the US "settlers". That is what the original wave of immigrants moving westward were called. Today the lands west of the original 13 colonies are pretty much settled so to call Chicagoans and Kentuckians "settlers" would be quaint but pretty archaic and meaningless. Once Israel is created in 1948, it is the same with Zionists. Calling Israelies is archaic and not accurate. In this care it is also racially and religiously and emotionally charged. The word is used strictly to incite. Its inference is that Israel is NOT a fact and its existence is NOT a settled matter. That is the meaning intentionally bestowed on the word by its usage by radical Palestinian groups. It has meaning within the context of their fanatical, unwavering, irrational and self defeating dedication to "driving the Jews into the sea".


{quote]If you take the European immigrants, the Zionists, out of the equation you would have "peace". [/quote}

so once again it comes down to your view that one or two jews is acceptable but enough to form a power base of their own is unacceptable. There were when that was America. A few Irish in Boston was ok because we needed maids and cops but when they started forming whole political wards and gaiuning power, that was unacceptable. Similarly a few mixicans to pick our crops and scrub our floors is a good thing but enough to have their own culture and power base within our borders is unthinkable. Those groups are here to stay in America and Israel is here to stay in the middle east. You can keep fighting it to the detriment of the rank and file palestinians just trying to eke out a living in the streets of Gaza City, or you can accept it and start to actually build something for those people.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 6 (view)
 
FBI to Turn In Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents
Posted: 8/21/2007 1:55:29 AM
I read it. as much as I could stomache before hitting the delete button

Ron Paul? Read MY post on the plethora of useless impractical and vote wasting third party candidates. Educating? Bah! one sided, propaganda is not educational material.

What have I done? Worked on three presidential campaigns and no, none of them were winning campaigns. Worked on 6 local congressional campaigns. Work raising money to support the lobbying group of my choice. Write graffiti over platitudes like the Franklin quote or the Jefferson quote about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots. Tear bumper stickers off cars that cause the IQ of anyone who reads them to drop in half immediately. Fell into the libertarian web in the Harry Browne days until I realized the risks in letting those guys tear the structure apart without having a clue of the wide ranging ramifications of what they propose.

The tyranny you refer to started when Jefferson became president so I have no clue where you got your 70 year figure. He started the grab for centralized power. He, the avowed enemy of a strong central govt was the first to exceed his constitutional power to achieve his goals. And agreed, it has not stopped since. But there are huge questions about the constitutionality of what the libertarian agenda has stood for. Unless you agree with Jackson that he can ignore the constitution to undo the unconstitutional acts of his predecessors.

Why do you idealists always find some nebulous spooky amorphous mass to invoke fear . . . Big finance . . . ooooh scary . . . little finance is a cute warm fuzzy but BIG finance is a nasty cold prickly. lol all the same.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 40 (view)
 
How long to call
Posted: 8/21/2007 12:33:44 AM
when I was in high school I had a million good excuses for tardiness!!

I feel that is kind of rigid. I have waited for dates who had been in car accidents and who had babysitter issues. The difference was that they could reach me and inform me. The lack of cell phone exacerbates the issue here. The shopping part of the story is of course disturbing. But, though I havent looked, from the way he said she went shopping in SF, I assume he is in east bay or somewhere a distance from the city. So traffic or parking or some inavoidable event might have caused it.

I once flew from DC to Indiannapolis for a date and was late because the plane was delayed. Still not a good excuse? Guess I need to break out the old tried and true, "my dog ate the directions!"
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 4 (view)
 
FBI to Turn In Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents
Posted: 8/21/2007 12:17:41 AM
what are YOU going to do about it? and why? Do you deny that the purpose, whether wrong headed or not was to make the population safer by seeking links to terrorist cells? Do you accuse the administration of acting for Nixonian political purposes? Are you comparing this to Hillary hiring a DC bouncer to handle FBI files on specific political enemies? We can argue over the legality of this (pretty much a waste on my part because I am not a lawyer and few lawyers are conversant in this specific field of law any way) but I dont know of anyone swerious who has yet opined that this is all a political dirty tricks comapign for personal or political gain. And yes, I do believe motive/intent counts. I again point to Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, as greivous a violation of individual rights as has been perpetrated by any american president IMO. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, I believe I understand of the man's motives in doing so.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 9 (view)
 
The MidEast's only democracy? Israel attacks peaceful demonstators
Posted: 8/21/2007 12:02:39 AM

Israel is an apartheid Occupation state that has one set of justice for Jews and another for Arabs. Israel can no more be a democracy than South Africa was during Apartheid


it is not aprtheid to defend yourself against a part of your population in revolt. It is not occupation when you keep lands after being attacked and repelling your invaders. To the victors go the spoils is as universal a principle of international law as exists. When Jordan rains death from the Golan Heights in war after war over 30 years, it is incumbent on Israel to seize the heights to defend its population. The Palestinian refugees are largely in the only Palestinain homeland there is . . . Jordan. But the Palestinians are the sole group of refugees from post WWII to remain unsettled. Because their Palestinain brothers and fellow arabs perpetuate their existence for political gain instead of absorbing them. They left when their arab "brothers' told them in '48 to leave their homelands and they could return after the jews were driven into the sea. They are still waiting, decades and repeated wars initiated by arab nations later. The arab PR machine uses emotionally charged words liek apartheid and zionist irresponsibly, incorrectly and politically. There is no such thing as a zionist. a Zionist is someone who supports the creation of the state of israel. It was created in 1948 by UN mandate. So what is the purpose of throwing around words that dont apply? Merely to inflame and hide your agenda. When Israel was coerced by its American allies under Clinton into giving up 97% of the demands of Arafat and the PLO, they refused to give, because they dont want peace, they dont want co existence, they dont want mere land for the palestinains. They want the the destruction of Israel and all Jews. THAT is the single goal and that is why no compromise is possible. That is why their treatment of Hamas et al is draconian. These are people who declare hatred and call for the elimination of Israel and Jews. They deny the holocaust existed. They indoctrinate hatred into their children. They fund and recruit murder bombers who target civilians. In the face of this determined. lying, inhuman and inhumane wave of fanatics determined to eradicate you, what is your answer? The sheep in Gaza and the west bank who just want to survive, are at the mercy of the radicals and their hatred of Israel. Dont try and say that Israeli behavior caused all of this. The minute the UN created Israel, before there was any chance for Israel to offend anyone, except by its very existence, the first war with their Arab neighbors started.

Occupiers? Jews lived on this land when it was Israel and Judea centuries before Muhammed lived and Islam sprang forth. Jews lived on it and were slaughtered by Roman Catholic Crusades along with Moslems. In 1948 more jews lived in peace in Amman and Baghdad and Tehran and moved to Israel than Palestinian refugees left Israel. Israael absorbed hundreds of thousands into their small arrrid land but all of the arab countries couldnt absorb tens of thousands of Palestinians and forced them insto camps rather than integrate them.

Your words are lies. Plain and simple
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Will The US Ever Get Her Constitution Back???
Posted: 8/20/2007 11:36:55 PM
wow, I dont even know where to begin . . .

First of all, Yeah, Thomas Jefferson sure wrote purdy words. Shame he didnt believe them himself. When he said all men are created equal, he meant all white landowning males. So would the founding fathers be shocked? Damn right! They would be shocked that women and blacks were voting. Jefferson was no friend of liberty. He lived and died and thought as part of the landed gentry that was dependent on slavery for their livelihood. His vision of America would have left those privileged few in control of the country. Luckily we ended up with Alexander Hamilton's model where the middle class has the power. Hamilton was not a privileged offspring of landed gentry, he was self made. Jefferson was against centralized power for the federal government right up until the time he became president and then was the first president to blatantly and brazenly expand the power of the federal government to suit his own purposes. Everyone now and then agrees that Jefferson did NOT have the Constitutional power to fund or execute the Louisiana Purchase but it was such an obviously beneficial move he said "damn the Constitution" and did it any way. Jackson did away with the unconsitutional banking system by unconstitutional means. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Washington approved the alien and sedition laws. Teddy Roosevelt exceeded his constitutional authority to expand federal powers over unions and to conduct trust busting. FDR lied and schemed to get us into WWII by circumventing the constitution until he had just cause to enter the war. All of our sacred cows expanded the centralized power at the expense of the constitution but we all think THEY would turn over in their graves. They would probably understand better than any of us what was going on because they have sat in that seat and made those choices. The constitution has survived precisely because it is flexible and expands to fit the times. All the hand wringing and woe is me-ing has gone on under every presidency and during every emergency. But here we are and that piece of paper is still around.

Vietnam was conducted under Republican and Democrat presidents. And anyone who thinks that the independent is the answer is fooling themselves. Paul, Perot, Harry Browne, Nader, they are all fringe candidates. They sound good but their platforms are even less practical than the mainstream candidates who promise everything to everyone knowing they couldnt pay for it in a million years. There is always someone who says listen to Paul. Listen to Perot. Listen to Harry Brown . . . Sherry Smith . . . fill in the blank. They are so appealing,, they make so much sense. They evoke Mr Smith goes to Washington. But it is a joke in the end. We would not be happy with the results of all their promises. There are too myriad details that would go awry because no one can foresee all of the ramifications of the cuts and changes and elimination of departments they recommend. They alsways sound great because of a romantic bent in us that doesnt have to add up because a niche candidate just wont win. This ship of state is too cumbersome to turn on a dime. It would capsize. It needs to be turned incrementally. The pain we would all feel otherwise is not worth the risk.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 37 (view)
 
How long to call
Posted: 8/20/2007 10:25:11 PM
or she left at the right time and got caught in traffic . . . or just about anything. She couldnt call and let you know because of YOUR situation, not hers so I think you are being unduly harsh. In this day and age a cell phone is assumed so the fact that she couldnt contact you is not her fault and not an indication of her being rude. Maybe she lost track of time and maybe she just wasnt done shopping. Maybe she wouldnt have bothered to call even if you did have your phone. Who knows? But I bet one thing she wasnt thinking of was making sure she was on time because you had allotted her a specific time limit so you could make your next date that day. Some people might find THAT bad taste. Your sending her a note or a call or some contact is not about HER being rude, it is about whether or not YOU are rude. Her actions or motives have NOTHING to do with whether or not YOU do the right thing. Whatever you judge that to be.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Do we need fool proof voting in America?
Posted: 8/20/2007 10:09:48 PM
You should be doing whatever you think is right for you. I am not aware of any ID cards that identify the fools however. I dont believe there is any such thing as "foolproof" voting. Should we improve the system if we can? Absolutely. But can we all agree on what constitutes an improvement? I doubt it. More damage is done in this country by knee jerk reactions to embaressing events than done by the original events IMO. I am not willing to make wholesale changes because Jesse Jackson went to visit some little old Jewish lady in Palm beach and convinced her that she might have mis-voted. The irony alone is too delicious. Palm Beach in my lifetime was restricted so that neither Jackson or the little old Jewish lady could have walked into the Breakers. Jackson insulted the little old Jewish lady when he used his famous hymie town reference to NYC but she forgave him long enough to get on tv and claim her vote was stolen from her. The little old Jewish lady probably calls Jackson a "schvartze", basically yiddish for the N word, but Jackson didnt care because he could benefit from using the little old Jewish Lady. Personally I say a pox on all of them. After we proof the system against fools, should we proof it from lil old Jewish ladies in Palm Beach because they cannot be trusted to competently vote for their intended candidate? Should we then proof it from dead people in Cook County Illinois voting?

We should improve the system where we can but we should guard against gerrymandering the system in the name of indignant "foolproofing".
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Do we need fool proof voting in America?
Posted: 8/20/2007 9:46:28 PM

Personally, I do think that people would have cut him at least a little more slack if he had actually WON either election. But, as it is...


but as it is he merely let the laws of the united states work the way they are supposed to work. No one was happy with the Supreme Court doing the work the people were supposed to do but they followed the rules as set forth and as best interpreted. Lets face it, Gore conceded and then said whoops, never mind. It appears in addition to the net, he invented the Uturn and the boomerang. News services announced Florida results before polls closed in the panhandle. Cinncy Dems were caught passing out smokes to get homeless registered. The whole thing was a cluster F***. But ultimately, as distasteful as the process was, as little as I ever want to hear about chads, hanging chads or chad lowe ever again, it was handled as best the constitution and surrounding laws could be interpreted in such an unprecedented situation. The process is not half as embaressing as the fact that so few avail themselves of it.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Do we need fool proof voting in America?
Posted: 8/20/2007 9:36:03 PM

The reality is you have just swallowed the republican spin.


This might hold water if dead people in Cook County Illinois didnt vote unanimously Democrat for the last 60 years

Or if Democrat committee members werent caught passing out smokes to get people into the polls in 2000 in Cinncinnati.

This crap works both ways. It is not a one sided issue. Has never been. Going back to Jefferson's victory. I wasnt around to monitor but I think the Washington and Adams victories were pretty taint free and I know the Jefferson victory was not.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 50 (view)
 
If you believe in God why do you fear death?
Posted: 8/20/2007 9:23:08 PM

Inkwell- I know that I am an only child, and I worry about the effect of something happening to me on my parents. It's my only real concern about death I guess. I don't live a dangerous lifestyle, but...bus, crosswalk, Goddess and God forbid.


thanks for your reply. I was just hoping you didnt have a reason for knowing your were going soon. I guess I was just taken aback by the response. I never think in those terms. I of course recognize I could go any day now but dont think in those terms.
Thanks and good luck in making it a long life before you have to worry about it.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 20 (view)
 
How long to call
Posted: 8/20/2007 9:19:18 PM
Be very aware that there is no single right answer. Despite the opinions of many on here, not only are men and women different from each other, men are not all the same and women are not all the same. There is no one size fits all answer to most of the questions on here. So always let your own gut feel and instinct govern your actions on these matters.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 12 (view)
 
How long to call
Posted: 8/20/2007 9:08:19 PM
for what it is worth, I always send an email or other online mesage when I get home from the date or first thing next morning, assuming those two arent one and the same, to say I had a great time and hope they did and look forward to our next conversation, date, contact. This leaves them the opening to respond that they feel the same which is hopefully an indication they want to see you again. This makes it easier to call and ask for the next date. Just my personal way of handling it.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 115 (view)
 
Got a fake diamond ring from fiance, he lied and said it was a 3 carat, 30,000 dollar ring!
Posted: 8/20/2007 8:57:08 PM
Margo I have read post number 279 three times and see no reference to his having gotten the ring as part of a business transaction. It appears that she credits you with putting in her head a thought she hadnt come up with on her own but does not confirm that this is how he got the ring?? I am cornfused! It still looks to me like this is a supposition on your part as a possibility . . . which is certainly fine, I am just trying to keep the original story, which gives us the only actual facts we have, straight in my head lol
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 49 (view)
 
If you believe in God why do you fear death?
Posted: 8/20/2007 8:46:51 PM

Even though we are told by God to Love each other the bible say s we all fall short of Loving others no matter how close we get.


Of course we all fall short. God kills his son to prove his love. Who among us is that sick and depraved?


God is perfect and the standard to gaining God s aproval is perfection


God cannot be perfect. He made us and we are imperfect to how can he be perfect? If his creation is flawed, he is somewhat less than perfect. And if we are the result of HIS imperfection, how are we to blame?

Reading some gobblydegook from a book is not making an argument or providing evidence. I might not be smart enough to understand a lot of things but I am also not blind enough to believe that which all of "god given" senses and mind tell me cannot be.

Your stating something as "the truth" does not make it so any more than my saying it is a lie makes it so.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 48 (view)
 
If you believe in God why do you fear death?
Posted: 8/20/2007 8:39:26 PM

you are responsible for your own acts inkwell.


I wouldnt have it any other way. YOU however are not only responsible for YOUR acts but were born with original sin on your rap sheet. SO if your God can hang that on ya, maybe he will stick a few of my sins on your ledger too?


Jesus was killed by his father, because you and I choose to sin


I repeat . . . what kind of sick twisted logic is that? If someone used that rationale in a court of law, they would be in a padded cell so fast their head would spin (no exorcist jokes please). When your child is bad do you kill their siblings? Why not? It would be the "godly" thing to do according to your logic. How will they know you love them if you dont kill someone? And if Jesus was killed by his father, why did you Christians kill us Jews for centuries!!??


you can apologize for your errors


I am always willing to apologize for my errors and sins committed against my fellow human beings


boost about, or blame others for them


sorry I am not familiar with the phrase "boost about" (sounds like from the UK?) but I think I get your drift. I am sure I am sometimes guilty of blaming others for my own mistakes and shortcomings anad actions. tis human nature I am afraid . . . but I dont think that is one of my major flaws.


but the price or consequence has to be paid for them....


Do ya take American Express? Sorry, I shouldnt make jokes. We all pay the price for our sins/errors/mistakes. I think the issue is whether it is in this world or the next that is at debate.


Also, sorry but not everyone will die....some will be raputred when Christ returns I guess this TRUTH is mine too


yes, and as a Jew it makes me oh so comfortable to know that the strongest defenders of Israel are fundamentalist Christians who only defend Israel because it has to exist for me to go to hell. Yes, that is your truth. You share it with millions which lends it strength . . . however I still find it sick and reprehensible that you can just blithely spit out the concept of a father killing his child to prove his love. You just let this thought skip off yoru tongue as if Disney birds were whislting and circling your head and bunnies were wrapping you in ribbon. In actuality the words you utter (type) instead of having a Disney like innocense are the sickest most depraved thoughts I can imagine! Murdering your child in a horrrendous, premeidtated, painful slow method for the purpose of provingone's love? This is like the scene in Carrie where the mother tries to kill Carrie except it isnt a horror film.

And dont get me started on the idea that an entity with the power to stop war, famine, pestilence, disease, drought, pain and suffering would refuse to do so out of some fit of anger over Eve eating an apple. Free will on one side of the balance and all of that list on the other and he deems free will more important? Bah! Sophistry!
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 113 (view)
 
Got a fake diamond ring from fiance, he lied and said it was a 3 carat, 30,000 dollar ring!
Posted: 8/20/2007 9:26:38 AM
Margo . . . did I miss a post from the OP? WHere did she say that he received the ring in a work related transaction? Or was that a theoretical on your part? I misspoke if that is some piece of the puzzle she let us in on and I missed it.
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 112 (view)
 
Got a fake diamond ring from fiance, he lied and said it was a 3 carat, 30,000 dollar ring!
Posted: 8/20/2007 9:22:23 AM
doesnt anyone read the thread before posting? If it is important enough to you to post, it should be important enough to read some.

Where did this say that the recipient in the original post placed ANY importance on the ring? My impression is that it mattered a heck of a lot more to the giver since he felt the need to deceive his loved one to impress her. And this act was planned long before he even knew her!
 inkwell
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 46 (view)
 
If you believe in God why do you fear death?
Posted: 8/20/2007 9:12:37 AM
That is YOUR truth Tuman. You believe so it is fact in your eyes. That does not make it so. And none of us can know for sure until it is too late to "win the bet".

For me that belief in God would hold me more blameless, not more accountable. If God created me, he is responsible for all of my flaws and faults. If God is all powerful he is as responsible for all the sins of his omission (allowing war, pestilence, disease, pain and suffering) as I am for MY sins of comission. If the God of the holy scriptures is as depicted he is as flawed as any of us, showing the insecurity which causes pain to Abraham and Job just to satisfy himself that they are properly worshipful and obedient. How is that worse than a cruel child pulling the wings off of flies? I would be much relieved to know that there is some all knowing all poweful entity who is ultimately responsible for all the evils of the earth whether thru omission or comission. It reduces our responsibility for it. Unfortunately whether he is up there or not, he doesnt seem to give a rat's patoot and isnt gonna fix the mess he made so it is up to us.

And yes I said "He". A female God would never kill her only offspring as a proof of her love. What kind of sick twisted rationale is that?
 
Show ALL Forums