Lion's Weekend Blurb - Nov. 1-2

[Lion]

Here we are in the last weekend leading up to the US Presidential election that will be held on November 4th. As it stands right now, Obama is leading in just about all of the 200+ polls that have been taken during the month of October. It would take a small miracle for John McCain to win. But as they say in the funny papers, it ain't over till the FAT LADY sings. IF McCain wins my home state of Pennsylvania, and our next door neighbor state Ohio, then he stands a chance. Of course, he still has to win all those other states that George Bush won in the 2004 elections. McCain is behind in many of those states as well. Of course, it all hinges on IF the polls are correct. It's all a big guessing game. The problem is, the majority of the news networks are liberal based with the exception of Fox News, and come election day they will be helping put Obama over the top so we here in the USA can say we have elected our first black President, and have made history. I have nothing against electing a black man for President as long as he's qualified to lead our country in these very trying times that we are currently facing. As I have said before, I just don't believe he's ready to lead. Sure, he looks the part with his fancy suits and smooth talk, but IS the change he claims he will bring to the United States of America the kind of change we need. Let's don't simply vote for him so we can have change. That's no reason to vote in the first black President. Is McCain a better choice? If your basing your vote on experience, he is the better choice, but I'm not 100% sold on him either. He's the lesser of the two evils in my opinion.

Anyhoot, lets hold a CNCDEN vote. I vote for McCain, what say the rest of you.

[nilloC]

The problem is, the majority of the news networks are liberal based with the exception of Fox News, and come election day they will be helping put Obama over the top so we here in the USA can say we have elected our first black President, and have made history.

"As we know, reality has a liberal bias."

That's the thing that really struck me in your post; CNN is the network that is most likely to discriminate against conservatives, but they're rather moderate as well. There are no truly liberal news stations, otherwise they'd be getting as much attention for their "bogus" nature as Fox News, which is an absolute joke.

Anywho, Mike Gravel. He's on the ballot in Indiana. Barack Obama if it is an "Obama vs. McCain" affair though. Hands down. Huzzah. McCain in 2000 was cool, but apparently some malevolent spirit took him over (or he sold out) for the 2008 election; what a shame.

[EliteGi]

Barack Obama, although technically speaking I can't vote.

But hey, nevermind these minor technicalities. :p

[Pr0SEAL]

Chuck Baldwin in the Constitution Party, that is who I am voting for. If he wasn't on the ballot, I would of written in Ron Paul.

[nomadtic]

I agree with pretty everything that Lion said in his post. While I am not at all thrilled with McCain, I am pretty scared of the direction which obama would try and take us. :mad: The governments only real duty is to protect its citizens from aggression of any kind, and I suppose to provide an infrastructure for us to sustain our lives in. Too many people today expect our government to provide all of their daily needs, and that is where the rest of us get screwed. :flame:

[ein1017]

I am voting for Obama. Course it is not because the color of his skin but the fact that the stuff he says that needs to be different makes sense to me. Now it is a completely different story if he will actually follow through with it.

[Ace]

Obama cause I think he seems more mature and less shouting at people :p
I think the changes Obama will try to do will be good for america.

[berlin88]

Vote McCain!

Regular NBC may not be that biased, but the cable version MSNBC is very liberal. MSNBC is almost worse than the New York Times in terms of bias. 70% of McCain articles/ stories/ programs on MSNBC were negative, compared to only 14% for Obama.

I cannot vote for Obama and his party, because they advocate big government socialism. They support activist judges who make laws, rather than interpret them. Left Wing Democrats have rewritten or reinterpreted much of our constitution. America is supposed to be a Democratic Republic, but we have become a socialist Democracy or will be if things keep going towards it.


"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."- Lincoln


“The legitimate functions are actually conductive to freedom. Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justices, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods- the exercise of these powers make it possible for men to pursue their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom.” Goldwater


“The constitution and the laws “made in pursuance thereof,” are the “supreme law of the land”, the constitution is what its authors intended it to be, and said it was, not what the supreme court says it is. If we condone the practice of substituting our own intentions for those of the Constitutions framers, we reject, in effect, the principle of constitutional government: we endorse a rule of men, not of laws.”- Goldwater


“As the failures of government welfare programs became increasingly apparent, people began to contrast those failures with the success of private charities in general, and faith based charities in particular.” -Quotation. Page 3. Tanner, Michael, “Corrupting Charity: Why Government Should Not Fund Faith- Based Charities”

[Korona]

Away from the rhetoric and speaking objectivly, Obama is the lesser of two evils. It can be statistically shown that the average American does better under Democrat than under Republican governments and Obama is a traditional Democrat.

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html

*quack quack*

[berlin88]

Democrats engage in government regulation of business, that is supposed to be illegal from the framers point of view. Obama wants to spread the wealth around through income redistribution, meaning he takes money from people who pay taxes and gives it to those who don't.

Government is supposed to promot freedom and liberty, not take it away. Big government leads to tyrants/ socialism ad other nonsense, hence why the framers cave us a Demnocratic Republic with a small government. Government that gives you what you need can take it away, or impose restriction or rules on what you have to do to get it. Government should strive to make people self sufficient, not encourage them to become dependent on big government handouts.

Congress gets it money from the people, takes out a portion for itself and sends it back. So theoretically, if the government can afford it that means the states can as well, so we should focus on them for running things.

Law enforcement officers were originally there to protect the citizens and the propety from the government, but that became obsolete with big government in the 1930's, so they changed it to protecting your rights.

[truefeel]

You are looking this too radical. You'll likely face a goverment model more like in West Europe.
I also noticed that Americans have an attitude that riches are praised b/c they pay taxes (duh, they have money enough). Look it this way: poor can't pay taxes. Some b/c they don't work, but I can't imagine that most of them want to life poor and don't want a job. I think your goverment needs to put up more programs to motivate these by indeed redestribution tax money, but also by givng thess poor people better chances (more scholings for them,...).

[Cylor]

McCain/Palin, for all the reasons listed by Lion, nomadtic and berlin88. But just to be fair (and completely honest), here are the condensed bullet points.

Problems I have with John McCain:
The McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" law (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112101859.html), which directly violates the First Amendment of the Constitution by placing legal limitations on political speech and advertising within 60 days of an election. One of many examples of McCain "reaching across the aisle" as he likes to put it, to work with Democrats in developing bad legislation.
He supports closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minutes/main2658405_page5.shtml), and transferring the illegal foreign combatants housed there to the U.S. prison system. Another case where he agrees with the hard-left Democrat leadership, and another profoundly bad idea.
He also supports what amounts to legal amnesty for illegal "immigrants" (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/12/new-mccain-ad-no-it-is-i-who-will-deliver-the-nightmarish-amnesty-america-neither-wants-nor-needs/), which was what put the near-fatal bullet in his campaign's heart during the Republican Primaries. Ah, what might have been...Having said all that, here are the reasons I'm going to swallow my personal distaste for Sen. McCain and vote for him anyway.
He won't destroy the economy through radical micromanagement the way Obama has more or less promised to.
Although he is against drilling for oil in ANWR, which is troubling (and which Sarah Palin supports) (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/12/palin-agrees-to-disagree-with-mccain-on-anwr/) he has been a vocal advocate of much more pro-active methods for the U.S. to increase its energy supply (the "Drill Here, Drill Now" slogan being the biggest example) than Obama/Biden has. And of course, the biggest reason...
He hasn't spent most of his campaign promising our allies and enemies abroad that he intends to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and our other bloodthirsty Wahabbist enemies. In fact, he has promised to do the opposite, and it's one area -- and the most important one -- where he's been entirely consistent.
Oh yeah, he also hasn't voted repeatedly in support of infanticide (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/archives/2008/10/archives/2008/10/archives/2008/10/archives/2008/09/archives/2008/09/archives/2008/08/11/infanticide-revisited/) during his Senate career, either.

[truefeel]

Hey cylor, long time no seen.

What happened with c-gen forums ? My and other's accounts are removed 0.o

On topic: Strong post, man, although I would not worry too much about promises and law propotitions for now, it will likely be that they change or just never come through.

[Cylor]

Hey cylor, long time no seen.

What happened with c-gen forums ? My and other's accounts are removed 0.o

Yeah, something happened to the member database...I wish I could tell you more than that, but that's honestly all I know. :redface:

[truefeel]

I suppose only Cannis can fix that ? In that case, I fear for it...

[crystal_sword]

Well im in the UK, so i cant vote. However, from what i have readand researched, Obama seems the more better choice.

I cannot imagine what will happen to the world if the US gets another Bush, which is what Mccain is.

However, if the US is simple and naive enough to put Bush into power twice, Mccain can easily get into power

[berlin88]

Do you people want socialism in America? Thats not what we were founded for, we were founded as a natiom of freedomand liberty, with small government. The founders understood big government leads to diactotrs/ tyrants and loss of freedoms/ liberty.

The preamble states very clearly the legitimate functions of government, therefore anything and everything not stated in the preamble is illegal. My reason for supporting Originalists and Textualists is that we cannot have the rule of law in America unless we obey the constitution and stop rewriting it!


Read up on the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, or even his books Conscience of a Conservative or Why Not Victory?

[truefeel]

Do you people want socialism in America? Thats not what we were founded for, we were founded as a natiom of freedomand liberty, with small government. The founders understood big government leads to diactotrs/ tyrants and loss of freedoms/ liberty.

The preamble states very clearly the legitimate functions of government, therefore anything and everything not stated in the preamble is illegal. My reason for supporting Originalists and Textualists is that we cannot have the rule of law in America unless we obey the constitution and stop rewriting it!


Read up on the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, or even his books Conscience of a Conservative or Why Not Victory?

Well,take the example of the countries of EU (with exception of Italy): These countries do relative well and you can't speak of tyrannism or loss of freedom.

I'm not gonna say that socialism will take care of the problems in america, but I think you should allow after alot of years of real liberal ruling, which failed completely in the hands of whacky bush, a change of guard.

[Mpdabunny]

Totally with you, Lion. This guy isn't ready for much, but is a smooth talker and apparently that's enough. Also a "typical" politician aka: Liar

I've given up on giving a ****. I'm pretty sure the phony will win. Too many people are gullible enough to fall for the smooth talkers. Along with people voting for TOTALLY moronic reasons. Among other problems is a lot of people voting for handouts, or tax breaks, not what's best for jobs and our entire economy. See, Obama is doing his damnedest to appeal to the "mass" of our country, and attacking the few rich among us. Which unfortunately will always get more votes.

I'm to the point I'm just gonna wait it out. Wait four years, hope to god our country's successful businesses don't jump ship when this nutjob that's an extreme Liberal borderline Socialist, raises our business taxes to the highest in the entire world. Hopefully he wont drive away too many jobs, hopefully he wont break the economy to the point we do head into a "real" recession. Then people like us, Lion, will be able to turn to the gullible ones and say "I told you so." Hopefully that "I told you so" wont come at too great a cost.

It's amazing though how people attack Bush on spending... but Obama is throwing so much money around with his promises that it boggles the mind. I guess that's called seeing what you want to see and nothing more. Must be nice to see only rainbows, sprinkles and unicorns. Hopefully their little lovefest Obama daydream land wont hurt the rest of us too much though.

[truefeel]

Well, who ever it's gonna be, it's going to be better than Bush. Worse can't be possible. Bush should not had been a second time president anyway; rumors ar he frauded the second elections. It's ok for me if mccain wins, but not if it's again frauded. I sincerely hope high placed people keep their stinky and dirty hands off the votes.

[berlin88]

Well,take the example of the countries of EU (with exception of Italy): These countries do relative well and you can't speak of tyrannism or loss of freedom.

I'm not gonna say that socialism will take care of the problems in america, but I think you should allow after alot of years of real liberal ruling, which failed completely in the hands of whacky bush, a change of guard.

How many EU nations have true religious liberty? France bans religious symbols, isn't that loss of liberty or freedom?



Quotation/ writing by William J. Murray, chairman of Religious Freedom Coalition on God in Public life

"The concept of religious freedom was important to the Founders of this nation because they believed it was the “first liberty” and without it no freedom, no liberty could exist at all.

Were they right?

Allow me to pose these questions to you:

If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of assembly?
If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of speech?
If the people do not have religious freedom, do they have freedom of the press?
Can any nation which does not allow true religious liberty then call itself free?
If the government can impost restrictions on religious expression/ symbolism, does that not impede religious liberty?"

[truefeel]

How many EU nations have true religious liberty? France bans religious symbols, isn't that loss of liberty or freedom?



Quotation/ writing by William J. Murray, chairman of Religious Freedom Coalition

"The concept of religious freedom was important to the Founders of this nation because they believed it was the “first liberty” and without it no freedom, no liberty could exist at all.

Were they right?

Allow me to pose these questions to you:

If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of assembly?
If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of speech?
If the people do not have religious freedom, do they have freedom of the press?
Can any nation which does not allow true religious liberty then call itself free?
If the government can impost restrictions on religious expression/ symbolism, does that not impede religious liberty?"

Well, it's only in public buildings (outside it is perfectly allowed) and such. That might be a loss, but do think that the multi-cultural situation in France is very labile. This is more a precaution. It will hurt Jewish and especially Muslims the most. Most other religion people, christians, will not find this a problem at all, nor a limitation to their freedom.

You are also generalising the problem: people can still do their religion everywhere they want, only just not with symbols in most public places. In moskees, churches, at home and such this rule is not valid. I hope this answers your list of questions.

I also want to stress that socialism is not perfect. it has it flaws, but saying that your freedom will be reduced heavily, does stays an opinion.

[berlin88]

Well, it's only in public buildings (outside it is perfectly allowed) and such. That might be a loss, but do think that the multi-cultural situation in France is very labile. This is more a precaution. It will hurt Jewish and especially Muslims the most. Most other religion people, christians, will not find this a problem at all, nor a limitation to their freedom.

You are also generalising the problem: people can still do their religion everywhere they want, only just not with symbols in most public places. In moskees, churches, at home and such this rule is not valid. I hope this answers your list of questions.

I also want to stress that socialism is not perfect. it has it flaws, but saying that your freedom will be reduced heavily, does stays an opinion.


Yes, but the religious comments I quoted from William J. Murray were about religion in public life (should have made that clear). The Hamilton vs Jefferson debate on religion was about government vs religion and religion in the public sector.

[truefeel]

Yes, but the religious comments I quoted from William J. Murray were about religion in public life (should have made that clear). The Hamilton vs Jefferson debate on religion was about government vs religion and religion in the public sector.These names don't say alot to me. I googled them to know who Murray is:

William J. Murray was an American. America values religion alot more then europeans. You americans might find this law a large limitation of freedom, but many of the christian europeans (or from other religions) don't see that, b/c religion does not interests them to that extent.

I'm not going to debate further about the deeper things of religion; the topic is not appropiate for it. However, you don't need to worry that such a law will come in your country, as such is not needed or even will get accepted in the USA.

[berlin88]

These names don't say alot to me. I googled them to know who Murray is:

William J. Murray was an American. America values religion alot more then europeans. You americans might find this law a large limitation of freedom, but many of the christian europeans (or from other religions) don't see that, b/c religion does not interests them to that extent.

I'm not going to debate further about the deeper things of religion; the topic is not appropiate for it. However, you don't need to worry that such a law will come in your country, as such is not needed or even will get accepted in the USA.


You might be surprised what can happen.

The drinking age in America is 21, because the government bribed all the states with Transportation money.

The southern Democrats were largely opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but once Congress offered them Education money, they supported it and passed it. They disliked the civil rights act, but wanted the education money for their states, so they gave in. Prior to that federal funding for education was non existant. In less than a decade the Southern Democrats went from hating the Civil Rights Act to supporting it.

In Utah, the Mormons were told they could not become a state until they banned Poligamy, so they banned it and most became anti poligamist.

[Korona]

How there can be such hysteria around Socialism boggles my mind. We are witnessing (living through) a spectacular example of just how badly the free market can screw up. We need intervention by people with power who are accountable to us, the electorate, to prevent the worst excesses of the free market system from screwing up our lives.

Socialism is the provision of things like roads, police, schools, fire departments and so on. It is the right to have time off, maximum working weeks, protection against hazardous working environments, a minimum wage.
America already has plenty of things that can be termed "socialism". The way it is equated in the minds of many Americans with tyranny and dictatorships, the loss of personal rights, is weird.

Socialism is about rights. It is about liberty. It is about protecting you from a system that wants to screw you for every hour of work possible and pay you as little as possible for it. Living in Dickensian times would be the real tyranny. I for one am bloody glad we had a labour movement, and praise the few level-headed socialists we still have like Tony Benn and Noam Chomsky for keeping that fact alive in our minds.

The current McCain rhetoric about how Obama wants socialism is just scare tactics. Keep that in mind at all times. Thanks. :wave:

[Mpdabunny]

Right, taking well over half of one man's money from his pocket only to put it in another man's, who did nothing for it, is just a scare tactic. :rolleyes:

Obama and his tax cuts.. free handouts of cash that doesn't belong to him, horrah! See, I'd be all for it if he took the money and put it into adult education projects or other government run programs to HELP people support themselves. However, Obama wants to take one man's money and give it to another so the government supports them. :\

Taking taxes to pay for governmental programs, I'm fine with, that's what taxes are for in the first place. The government using it's almighty hand to take money from one man to give to another.. pffft Obama can just GTFO with his socialist "leaning" ideals. :nuts:

[Lord-Vale3]

I vote McCain. More experience, he won't shrink our military, he will allow me to keep my fire arm to defend my family and possessions, he wont tax all of my money away, and Palin, his partner seems to be the most middle class minded politician that actually knows about the middle class that I have ever seen.

[HawkEye1102002]

Can't vote in America cos of be living in the UK, but if I was forced to say "who's your choice if you are an American", I would go for McCain.

I find Obama making these typical massive promises that to me, seems rather unrealistic and it is like he promises to wave a magic wand and make things better after the big bad Bush - plus I dislike big gobernments, expensive and usually full of useless do-gooders who have nest-to-useless possitions in power, campaining for some law or other to appease the small minority of people who want something to be law.
Obama sais he is for change, where have I heard that before in history?
Oh well, atleast it isn't Hillary "I hate GTA because of some unfounded evidence it makes people go carjacking" Clinton.

McCain I am not too fond of either, and his sidekick, Palin, to me, is trying to be the female Obama with the "Oh look, I'm just like everyone else, I love those hockey moooms", like Obama, I find she is more appeasing than getting what her parties polocies is about - come to think of it, not being sexist or anything, I feel Palin was bought onboard for the PC "equal rights" voters.

But something I found that McCain and Obama has in common - Alfghanistan, it seems to me that them two think that the "War on Terror" has a central point there - truth is there is no "central point" as AQ and other terrorists like them are all around the world

All I can say to Obama and McCain is good luck...

[ein1017]

In Utah, the Mormons were told they could not become a state until they banned Poligamy, so they banned it and most became anti poligamist.

Well that also came from our prophet too. From what I understand, the reason why we abandoned Polygamy was because it was no longer needed. granted the U.S. Government pushed for it too but It was not the only reason.


Anyways, The main reason for conflict between religion and the government is keeping them separated. It is hard to say where you draw the line.

[HawkEye1102002]

How many EU nations have true religious liberty? France bans religious symbols, isn't that loss of liberty or freedom?

I remember a long time back that someone told me the reason France banned religious symbols from schools was that Muslim pupils refused to go into class with Jewish pupils, and some pairents complained about Jewish symbols in the classroom, so instead of being in favour of one religion, they banned all relics from schools - not sure if that is true or not and I'm not saying that I agree with what France has done.

[berlin88]

Well that also came from our prophet too. From what I understand, the reason why we abandoned Polygamy was because it was no longer needed. granted the U.S. Government pushed for it too but It was not the only reason.


Anyways, The main reason for conflict between religion and the government is keeping them separated. It is hard to say where you draw the line.

Where you draw the line is rather simple. No federal funding for religion from congress and no endorsement of a specific denomination. The Establishment clause was supposed to mean protecting one religious denomination from another, until it was reinterpreted as protecting non religion from religion in 1947.

States funding religion or paying for a church is ok, even school prayer would have been acceptable to many of the early founders like Hamilton. All they wanted was to keep the federal government in Washington DC from declaring baptists or quakers or any other denomination to be the official religion.

When the Establishment clause was put in, many of the states already had an official religion or a state sponsored church.

Lastly, the bill of rights originally applied only to the federal government and in federal courts. The bill of rights were only encorporated to the states during the progresssive era of the 20th century. It was just assumed the states would have their own version of a bill of rights.

[Slapper]

Well hi all, very long time no see. good to be back.

Just returned once again from Afghanistan, 3rd tour there now. Lots going on back home. Lots of soap opera grade Politics as par usual, we just wasted a billion or two on a useless election that noone really bothered to vote in in my Country so i hear, we ended up with another Minority Government for the 2nd time in a year.

The feeling i think most get in all Democracys these days is your vote, well, it means nothing, the rich get richer, the Politicians stay rich, and guys like me go and defend Oil Interests and Pipeline companys interests in foreign Countrys courtesy of the Bush Administration and, his rich friends. I wont go into that tirade again, but in my mind, being there, seeing it, just last week even, tells me that my own opinion is a bunch of guys in a cave didnt do it and this whole thing was a setup. Your security as far as the Reps go, your no safer for any of these Wars. Nothing much has changed there. Same old. Thats my opinion of Republicans.

What ive seen of Barack Obama, he seems to be a good man, again, not really seen much of him yet being where i have been, but seems to want to change the system, the one that keeps the rich, rich, and the poor, poor. Noble aspirations, been promised a 100 times before him. I suspect nothing will change, other than maybe the Wars, but he is a baby in a Big Man's Town, the things people will say to him and the state secrets and reasons behind all this War will be in his sphere of knowledge if he becomes Pres. Things you learn about once you hold that seat, they are life changing im sure and just because he touts an Anti-War message does not mean it will end or that he will follow his promises. How many Politicians do to be honest. really....what he says now and what he will do later is entirely another deal.

If i was an Yank, id vote Ron Paul, now that guy, he is a real man. But they made sure he was sidelined, he spoke too much truth and the Bankers and big shots wanted none of him. But anyways, from what the rest of the World sees, anything is better than Bush. Until you travel around the World, you Americans really dont seem to understand the hatred level people hold for Bush. That is not a joke guys. I think most of you with a brain realize this, the internet is one place we see it all the time. Anti Bush. Even Countries in the EU, they hate Bush. Why, you ask yourself why. Easy answer again....Lies, lies, lies, and more lies. Deny it, debate it, You cannot trust him or his word. A man aint got no word, he aint worth spit. Im a redneck and thats how i see it.

Hey Berlin dude, ill debate those questions. Ask yourself, in America, right now....

If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of assembly?

No, actually you do not, try and see how close you can come to the White House to protest peacefully, or in New York City on any street, in a large crowd. Try it, with no piece of paper from local Law Enforcement or the FBI,allowing you to do so, and they are regularly rejected. I repeat , rejected on the grounds of National Security. Research it.

If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of speech?

Let me let you in on a secret, the Internet is one of the last bastions of Free Speech left on this planet, and believe me, the Telecommunications Companys want to control this place too and are trying as we speak.


If the people do not have religious freedom, do they have freedom of the press?

Nope, you dont, why you ask? look into who owns all the Major News Outlets and see what company owns them and who runs them. You have 4 major Multinational Corporations owning the major outlets, who are Defence contractors with close ties to to Washington and Major contributors to the respective Political Parties. just to name a few....Freedom of Speech? Integrity in the News? ya right, went out with the new laws y'all have about who can own how many News outlets. that set of laws stacked the deck against the whole Country. They only say and tell you what they want you to know and what they want you to hear or what you want to hear. Truth is passe', outdated. Why tell the truth, people will believe any damn thing these days. We all know this, this should not be a surprise to anyone. Big Business and Big Money own your News. The ones that make money from Wars. Again, look into it, dont believe me.

Can any nation which does not allow true religious liberty then call itself free?

Muslims are villified in the U.S. not a surprise there, the Japanese were as well. nothing new. Under GW, your not free, you just think you are, Patriot act 1 and 2, for the loss. Reduced and restricted Civil Liberties, for the loss. I can go on and on and on. A lot of you people on this forum live there, i dont see how you can not see whats gone on right in front of your face. If they tried half of what they have done to you in the last 8 years, i promise you there would be 8 million people in Ottawa on the front lawn of Parliament freaking totally out. We take our Freedom very seriously in this Country, we would not stand for it. But all of you have for what>? Because they said the Bad Guys are gonna get you? Boo!!!! are you scared now?..man. really.

If the government can impose restrictions on religious expression/ symbolism, does that not impede religious liberty?"

It does and it has in America, just ask any Muslim who attends a Mosque if they feel safe, are they being watched? do they feel alienated? do they feel likes it them against the World? I dont blame them, personally. This is a case where the unspoken truth is the essence of this question. Are they free to express their religion? probably not, the CIA and FBI or some Law Enforcement Agency has probably got them under 24/7 surveillance. Look, in the Middle Eastern Countries, you bet your bootys that they feel America is against them, in fact the Western world period. Its no wonder they think this way and Muslims in the U.S feel it even more, that stare they must get, dressing in tradional Muslim garb, walking anywhere, they get looks of suspicion and mistrust. Most of the Muslims i have met overseas { ofc, not speaking about the Taliban and their supporters who want me dead because im invading their Country, gee theres a surprise}are good people, a simple people, the Afghanis, it does not take much to make them happy, but what has been done to thier Country by occupier after occupier, i cant imagine how anyone could think they are happy this way. I know they arent, i seen it for myself. I am looked at as an Occupier, even though in my heart and im sure i speak for many Military people, we are there to try and help them. Problem is, what we consider help, they dont see it the same as us...Because Bush and Co. said that Muslims attacked you. so they say...{cough} I been there, seen it, done it, watched people die or come close to it more than once, all for what...Religion? This is not about Relgion, it is about money, greed, power, same thing that drives Men from the beginning of time and Wars. Money, money, money, resources, resources, resources. There is so much to to told, the story of Afghanistan, Iraq, what went on before this all happened, who wanted pipelines in Afghanistan, etc, etc. and on and on and on, some of ya need to do homework and not buy all this crap about security, freedom that is forcefed down your throats from so called Truthful and Honest News Networks...they lie just as much as Bush and more. Why? money, money, money......


Always a pleasure debating you Berlin, been a while, im fresh for some good agreement/ disagreement. I missed this.

At the end of the day, i hope whoever takes over America, understands that there are fences to mend, and there are better ways of dealing with enemies than the sword, sometimes poking them with just a large stick would suffice. Russia and the U.S never went to War did they, the Big Stick approach, one that GW has no grasp of. Now that being said Reps and Dems started many wars, in fact the Dems more so in history anyways.

Who will make you safer? cant answer that question, i wish i could. I know this, the people that are at least for real trying to make you safer are not John McCain, Barack Obama, they just say the words, they arent the ones dodgin IED's and RPG's and bullets, they are far removed from the **** they cause with their decisions. Keep that in mind.

They are the talkers, the suits. The spears are your neighbor, Billy Bob down the road, and your old High School teacher, the Quarterback who played for your High School Team and that guy who delivered milk to the Farmers Market from his Pa's Farm and your old Dentist in the Reserves. It aint the suits. Make sure when you cast your vote, that it is the guy who will take care of these people and make sure they didnt die for nothing or if it means bring them home, then bring em home, They dont deserve any less than the best person who will lead them.

To me, they took America,s best chance for real change out of the equation when Ron Paul did not win the Rep Nomination. He was opposed to the Fed Reserve system, which is currently why your dollar is worth about as much as toilet paper and also a major cause of the Financial meltdown as well as contributing to your national debt, which has so many zero's after it, its incomprehensible. and to top it all off, look at who are some of the major players in the Rep party and what they did before they were Politicians and you tell me your going to get a fair shake. Who was Donald Rumsfeld? who is Dick Cheney? where did they work before they were Politicians. Those are only 2 of the people out of scores of them who were Big Business, Big Oil, Big Finance, Wall Street products. All of them Reps. I dont know about the rest of you, but i still keep in touch with people i worked for and sure as hell if theres a way i can get a deal out of them somehow by who i know or what i know, im going to try, i doubt highly Politicians are any different. Reps just stink of backwater deals, big tax breaks, looking the other way when its their buddys and making laws unto themselves to protect the conflict of interests sure to be present in todays Ruling Party and the decisions they make.

Yup, it would be a good time to give the Dems a shot, Bush stunk the house out and still is, and in the world view of Bush, only the blind cannot see the truth and if they cant see it, they should have felt it by now. John McCain is Bush the 2nd and so is his party. Get the money hungry liars out out of that White House and give Obama a shot, he cant **** it up any worse than it is now.

[ein1017]

Where you draw the line is rather simple. No federal funding for religion from congress and no endorsement of a specific denomination. The Establishment clause was supposed to mean protecting one religious denomination from another, until it was reinterpreted as protecting non religion from religion in 1947.

States funding religion or paying for a church is ok, even school prayer would have been acceptable to many of the early founders like Hamilton. All they wanted was to keep the federal government in Washington DC from declaring baptists or quakers or any other denomination to be the official religion.

When the Establishment clause was put in, many of the states already had an official religion or a state sponsored church.

Lastly, the bill of rights originally applied only to the federal government and in federal courts. The bill of rights were only encorporated to the states during the progresssive era of the 20th century. It was just assumed the states would have their own version of a bill of rights.

One thing about the constitution though is it's flexibility to be changed along with changing times. The founding fathers understood that. AS a nation we are pretty open minded to ideas that back then was considered abnormal. Course we had to reinforce a couple of ideas like civil liberties so that there is no confusion.

About religion. A lot of people do not want another religion forced upon themselves or their children. To them, allowing praying in public schools is a big no no or even religious symbols in Federal stuff. The drawn line is extremely fuzzy cause nobody can agree where it should be. It is similar to the fight that California has about prop 8 which defines marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is a religious thing that the Federal government recognize. So where would that fall under?

[berlin88]

One thing about the constitution though is it's flexibility to be changed along with changing times. The founding fathers understood that. AS a nation we are pretty open minded to ideas that back then was considered abnormal. Course we had to reinforce a couple of ideas like civil liberties so that there is no confusion.

About religion. A lot of people do not want another religion forced upon themselves or their children. To them, allowing praying in public schools is a big no no or even religious symbols in Federal stuff. The drawn line is extremely fuzzy cause nobody can agree where it should be. It is similar to the fight that California has about prop 8 which defines marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is a religious thing that the Federal government recognize. So where would that fall under?

Yes, but the first amendment says the government shall make no laws restricting the freedom of religion.

How can you ban school prayer and not violate the first amendment?

The problem I have is this, the ban on school prayer was made by the Supreme Court, not Congress. Courts are supposed to interpret the laws, not make them. If it had been made by Congress thats one thing, but the courts doing it is not ok.



Well hi all, very long time no see. good to be back.
Just returned once again from Afghanistan, 3rd tour there now. Lots going on back home. Lots of soap opera grade Politics as par usual, we just wasted a billion or two on a useless election that noone really bothered to vote in in my Country so i hear, we ended up with another Minority Government for the 2nd time in a year.
The feeling i think most get in all Democracys these days is your vote, well, it means nothing, the rich get richer, the Politicians stay rich, and guys like me go and defend Oil Interests and Pipeline companys interests in foreign Countrys courtesy of the Bush Administration and, his rich friends. I wont go into that tirade again, but in my mind, being there, seeing it, just last week even, tells me that my own opinion is a bunch of guys in a cave didnt do it and this whole thing was a setup. Your security as far as the Reps go, your no safer for any of these Wars. Nothing much has changed there. Same old. Thats my opinion of Republicans.
What ive seen of Barack Obama, he seems to be a good man, again, not really seen much of him yet being where i have been, but seems to want to change the system, the one that keeps the rich, rich, and the poor, poor. Noble aspirations, been promised a 100 times before him. I suspect nothing will change, other than maybe the Wars, but he is a baby in a Big Man's Town, the things people will say to him and the state secrets and reasons behind all this War will be in his sphere of knowledge if he becomes Pres. Things you learn about once you hold that seat, they are life changing im sure and just because he touts an Anti-War message does not mean it will end or that he will follow his promises. How many Politicians do to be honest. really....what he says now and what he will do later is entirely another deal.
If i was an Yank, id vote Ron Paul, now that guy, he is a real man. But they made sure he was sidelined, he spoke too much truth and the Bankers and big shots wanted none of him. But anyways, from what the rest of the World sees, anything is better than Bush. Until you travel around the World, you Americans really dont seem to understand the hatred level people hold for Bush. That is not a joke guys. I think most of you with a brain realize this, the internet is one place we see it all the time. Anti Bush. Even Countries in the EU, they hate Bush. Why, you ask yourself why. Easy answer again....Lies, lies, lies, and more lies. Deny it, debate it, You cannot trust him or his word. A man aint got no word, he aint worth spit. Im a redneck and thats how i see it.
Hey Berlin dude, ill debate those questions. Ask yourself, in America, right now....
If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of assembly?
No, actually you do not, try and see how close you can come to the White House to protest peacefully, or in New York City on any street, in a large crowd. Try it, with no piece of paper from local Law Enforcement or the FBI,allowing you to do so, and they are regularly rejected. I repeat , rejected on the grounds of National Security. Research it.
If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of speech?
Let me let you in on a secret, the Internet is one of the last bastions of Free Speech left on this planet, and believe me, the Telecommunications Companys want to control this place too and are trying as we speak.
If the people do not have religious freedom, do they have freedom of the press?
Nope, you dont, why you ask? look into who owns all the Major News Outlets and see what company owns them and who runs them. You have 4 major Multinational Corporations owning the major outlets, who are Defence contractors with close ties to to Washington and Major contributors to the respective Political Parties. just to name a few....Freedom of Speech? Integrity in the News? ya right, went out with the new laws y'all have about who can own how many News outlets. that set of laws stacked the deck against the whole Country. They only say and tell you what they want you to know and what they want you to hear or what you want to hear. Truth is passe', outdated. Why tell the truth, people will believe any damn thing these days. We all know this, this should not be a surprise to anyone. Big Business and Big Money own your News. The ones that make money from Wars. Again, look into it, dont believe me.
Can any nation which does not allow true religious liberty then call itself free?
Muslims are villified in the U.S. not a surprise there, the Japanese were as well. nothing new. Under GW, your not free, you just think you are, Patriot act 1 and 2, for the loss. Reduced and restricted Civil Liberties, for the loss. I can go on and on and on. A lot of you people on this forum live there, i dont see how you can not see whats gone on right in front of your face. If they tried half of what they have done to you in the last 8 years, i promise you there would be 8 million people in Ottawa on the front lawn of Parliament freaking totally out. We take our Freedom very seriously in this Country, we would not stand for it. But all of you have for what>? Because they said the Bad Guys are gonna get you? Boo!!!! are you scared now?..man. really.
If the government can impose restrictions on religious expression/ symbolism, does that not impede religious liberty?"
It does and it has in America, just ask any Muslim who attends a Mosque if they feel safe, are they being watched, do they feel alienated, do they feel likes it them against the World. I got news flash, in the Middle Eastern Countries, you bet your bootys that they feel America is against them, in fact the Western world period. Cant blame em. I been there, seen it, done it, watched people die or come close to it more than once, all for what...
Always a pleasure debating you Berlin, been a while, im fresh for some good agreement/ disagreement. I missed this.
At the end of the day, i hope whoever takes over America, understands that there are fences to mend, and there are better ways of dealing with enemies than the sword, sometimes poking them with just a large stick would suffice. Russia and the U.S never went to War did they, the Big Stick approach, one that GW has no grasp of. Now that being said Reps and Dems started many wars, in fact the Dems more so in history anyways.
Who will make you safer? cant answer that question, i wish i could. I know this, the people that are at least for real trying to make you safer are not John McCain, Barack Obama, they just say the words, they arent the ones dodgin IED's and RPG's and bullets, they are far removed from the **** they cause with their decisions. Keep that in mind.
They are the talkers, the suits. The spears are your neighbor, Billy Bob down the road, and your old High School teacher, the Quarterback who played for your High School Team and that guy who delivered milk to the Farmers Market from his Pa' Farm and your old Dentist in the Reserves. It aint the suits. Make sure when you cast your vote, that it is the guy who will take care of these people and make sure they didnt die for nothing or if it means bring them home, then bring em home, They dont deserve any less than the best person who will lead them.


Slapper, the Liberal Establishment/ Left wing Socialists don't like Ron Paul any more than the Republican do.


Ron Paul opposes the Department of Education, Democrats support it. He also is against federal education funding.

Ron Paul opposes the department of defense, Republicans support it

Ron Paul opposes government regulation of big business, Democrats support it

Ron Paul opposes the federal reserve and wants the gold standard, Liberals don't

Ron Paul opposed the mortgage bailout plan, Dems and Republicans supported it

Ron Paul opposed Iraq, the Republicans supported it

Ron Paul votes against income redistribution and government welfare programs, his rivals support it.

Ron Paul also is against Universal Healthcare.


Basically, Ron Paul is in the middle as a Libertarian Republican, and neither party likes him. While I do support McCain, I also like many of Ron Pauls Economic positions. Many of my Conservative views would be similar to those of Barry M. Goldwater, the failed Republican presidential candidate of 1964. Many of my positions are based on historical evidence, the federalist papers, economic conservatism and Goldwater Conservatism. I disagree with many of the left wing ideas because they either restrict freedom/ liberty, violate the constitution, contradict the intentions of our founding fathers or resort in the government doing things the people should be doing themselves. There are obviously areas where I disagree with the Republicans as well (like all the out of control spending, wiretaping, etc),but there are areas where I do agree with them.

Democrats have become mostly socialists/ radical liberals, while the right has become some mutated form of Conservatism, where depending on the issue they are more like free spending- big government liberals or far right extremists.

Lastly, from Lincoln and the Civil War until the 1964 Goldwater campaign, the Republicans were viewed as Liberals and at times Progressives, while the Dems were hard core social Conservatives and economic liberals. However, with FDR and the depression, the Democrats became big government liberals, and then hard core liberals in the 1960's, when the Republicans became Conservative. After the Civil War and Reconstruction, the south voted for the Democrats every time until the 1960's, and it was the largest voter block for the party. After 1964 with the Goldwater campaign the Democratic party supporting the Civil Rights Act, they became Republican states. Essentially, over time both parties switched sides.

[ein1017]

The Court was not making the law when they passed that verdict. They interpreted the law the way they saw it. They didn't actually write the law.

[Slapper]

Yeh, well , i dont have to live there, so i can spout off all i want, your probably right Berlin, i didnt look all that deeply into Ron Paul, but the parts i did see, i liked, The Gold Standard being one of them. Many Presidents tried to do away with the Fed system and where did they end up...guess. Dead. Assasinated.

I could not get my head around this....He is on the Gold Commission, one of the people entrusted to keep an eye on the Americans peoples Gold. He asked for an Audit a few years back. Well, **** me to Sunday, if Bush and Co didnt come back to him and the rest of the Congressman entrusted with this job, and told them that it was not possible to have an audit done. Why? hold your hats people, im not sure how many people even know this, or care to ever look into it, but....Your Gold is now gone, it has been taken by the Fed Reserve as collateral on the loans given to your Nation. Yes, the Gold in fort Knox that has been gaurded by one of the most Decorated Calvary Units in American history has nothing to gaurd anymore, there is nothing in fort Knox that even closely resembles a gold brick.

He actually said, in his exact words" If the American people ever knew this or it ever appeared on the National New Networks , there would be a revolution tomorrow morning", thats a no **** quote. Do you people understand what this means?? Seriously?? wake up!!! Your now broke and your gold is gone. You wonder why your dollar is worthless? now you know why, the money is printed out of thin air, with nothing to back it up and it is printed by the Fed Reserve, which is a Private Bank owned by private people who have 0 to do with the US Government. If freaks me out how many people think the Fed Reserve is a Government Bank...rofl!!! hello, it isnt.....Your money is printed by Foreigners, and Presidents have died trying to fight this sytem. how the **** did it ever get to this? This was your Countrys worth, your Gold, not the Governments, YOURS>>>> and its gone now to the bankers, Eat that one, its not BS, look into it.

US Government 101, Lesson by Slapper, pay attention class.

Most people think that when a Congressman needs money for Social programs, or whatever he needs it for, for his/her district, that they get it from Taxes. Well, raising taxes is very unpopular and it certainly is not good for the Political survival, very unpopular, it gets you unelected very fast these days. So, enter the Fed. The Congressman/woman goes to the Fed, says hey, i need 1 billion for this program, they say suuuure, no problem, just sign here, and while we are at it, we will take 500 million in Government Bonds and plus you owe us 500 mill with interest. Baddabing, baddaboom, they electronically make up 1 billion in said Goverment account, there is not even paper to back this up, its all electronic, never mind that the Gold is not even there anymore to back it up. so, in essence, the money is made out of thin air, thus increasing the cash flow once it filters down, making inflation go up and basically, that dollar is backed up by **** all and it has no buying power. Reason numero uno why the financial fall and reason for the dollar being worth next to zip, the purchasing power is backed up by a big fat 0.

That system has been used to subvert and put your nation and all nations into Debt that will last forever, we are all slaves whether we like it or not. If you have a morgage, credit cards and bank loans, your a slave and will be for the rest of your life. countrys are no different. Paper money is dick all if it isnt backed up with something. The bankers rule this planet, noone else.

Id vote Obama, but thats me, you do what y'all think is right, but what Bush and Co has brought to the table in the last 8 years, id say we are lucky WW3 aint broke out yet and that North America aint totally flat broke yet. Yet.....You want to survive as a Country, id say grow some balls, get your gold back, kick out the bankers and liars, and try something else, this clearly aint working.

[Cylor]

I cannot imagine what will happen to the world if the US gets another Bush, which is what Mccain is.

I suppose your thinking this is somewhat excusable since you're in the UK, and have no real reason to follow US politics. But as a Republican who's watched Senator McCain stab President Bush in the back nearly every time the chance has presented itself over the past eight years, I can assure you, only the blind or ignorant can accept the "McCain = Bush" Democrat propaganda at face value.

Well, who ever it's gonna be, it's going to be better than Bush. Worse can't be possible. Bush should not had been a second time president anyway; rumors ar he frauded the second elections. It's ok for me if mccain wins, but not if it's again frauded. I sincerely hope high placed people keep their stinky and dirty hands off the votes.

I'm afraid you're misinformed on two counts. The first being the legitimacy of Bush's re-election, and the second being exactly who is involved with current attempts at electoral fraud.

ACORN, a high-profile liberal/Democrat activist group, is currently being investigated by the FBI for very serious allegations of fraud in over a dozen states. (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/09/what-does-obama-know-about-acorn-fraud/) Barack Obama has paid this organization $800,000 to work on behalf of his campaign, and furthermore, he was personally involved with ACORN as an activism trainer and legal consultant, for several years. (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/busted-obama-fight-smears-website.html)

There is a Presidential campaign involved in a lot of very suspicious and dishonest activities this year. But it isn't John McCain's.

[berlin88]

Yeh, well , i dont have to live there, so i can spout off all i want, your probably right Berlin, i didnt look all that deeply into Ron Paul, but the parts i did see, i liked, The Gold Standard being one of them. Many Presidents tried to do away with the Fed system and where did they end up...guess. Dead. Assasinated.
I could not get my head around this....He is on the Gold Commission, one of the people entrusted to keep an eye on the Americans peoples Gold. He asked for an Audit a few years back. Well, **** me to Sunday, if Bush and Co didnt come back to him and the rest of the Congressman entrusted with this job, and told them that it was not possible to have an audit done. Why? hold your hats people, im not sure how many people even know this, or care to ever look into it, but....Your Gold is now gone, it has been taken by the Fed Reserve as collateral on the loans given to your Nation. Yes, the Gold in fort Knox that has been gaurded by one of the most Decorated Calvary Units in American history has nothing to gaurd anymore, there is nothing in fort Knox that even closely resembles a gold brick.
He actually said, in his exact words" If the American people ever knew this or it ever appeared on the National New Networks , there would be a revolution tomorrow morning", thats a no **** quote. Do you people understand what this means?? Seriously?? wake up!!! Your now broke and your gold is gone. You wonder why your dollar is worthless? now you know why, the money is printed out of thin air, with nothing to back it up and it is printed by the Fed Reserve, which is a Private Bank owned by private people who have 0 to do with the US Government. If freaks me out how many people think the Fed Reserve is a Government Bank...rofl!!! hello, it isnt.....Your money is printed by Foreigners, and Presidents have died trying to fight this sytem. how the **** did it ever get to this? This was your Countrys worth, your Gold, not the Governments, YOURS>>>> and its gone now to the bankers, Eat that one, its not BS, look into it.
US Government 101, Lesson by Slapper, pay attention class.
Most people think that when a Congressman needs money for Social programs, or whatever he needs it for, for his/her district, that they get it from Taxes. Well, raising taxes is very unpopular and it certainly is not good for the Political survival, very unpopular, it gets you unelected very fast these days. So, enter the Fed. The Congressman/woman goes to the Fed, says hey, i need 1 billion for this program, they say suuuure, no problem, just sign here, and while we are at it, we will take 500 million in Government Bonds and plus you owe us 500 mill with interest. Baddabing, baddaboom, they electronically make up 1 billion in said Goverment account, there is not even paper to back this up, its all electronic, never mind that the Gold is not even there anymore to back it up. so, in essence, the money is made out of thin air, thus increasing the cash flow once it filters down, making inflation go up and basically, that dollar is backed up by **** all and it has no buying power. Reason numero uno why the financial fall and reason for the dollar being worth next to zip, the purchasing power is backed up by a big fat 0.
That system has been used to subvert and put your nation and all nations into Debt that will last forever, we are all slaves whether we like it or not. If you have a morgage, credit cards and bank loans, your a slave and will be for the rest of your life. countrys are no different. Paper money is dick all if it isnt backed up with something. The bankers rule this planet, noone else.
Id vote Obama, but thats me, you do what y'all think is right, but what Bush and Co has brought to the table in the last 8 years, id say we are lucky WW3 aint broke out yet and that North America aint totally flat broke yet. Yet.....You want to survive as a Country, id say grow some balls, get your gold back, kick out the bankers and liars, and try something else, this clearly aint working.


I am confused slapper, you make this big post about American gov and the evil federal reserve, yet you want to vote for Obama?

Inflation is not going to go down under Obama or McCain, it will only increase. Neither of them is going to do away with the federal reserve. Democrats created the Federal Reserve and the income tax before WW1 and removed the gold standard (to help fight the depression), so its unlikely they will put it back. FDR made it illegal for private citizens to have gold, and had the government confiscate it.

Perhaps the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party would be a decent alternative to the Democrats and Republicans? Because neither party truely advocates what the federalist or our founding fathers intended.

I look at Ron Paul or the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, and I see two people fighting for small government, freedom and liberty, something neither party is fighting for today. Today its either left wing socialism or right wing extremists/ dictators. If the nominee had been someone other than McCain or Ron Paul for the Republicans, I would be voting 3rd party on Tuesday.


As for gold, three things:

1. The major nations all store their gold in New York, we convinced them to do it way back after WW2.

2. We have gold at Fort Knox and other places, its just owned by someone else.

3. Its been over 70 years without a gold standard, so what happens to the currency value if we adopt gold again? Would paper money be useless? How would be pay off the hude debt? We can't ignore or throw out all the money we have printed, and the gigantic national debt.