Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       10-07-2011, 1:50 PM Reply   
I love it how the republicans and tea party are to blame when it comes to nothing getting done. There is a reason for it: someone needs to stop these clowns from doing whatever it is that they want......especially when they don't even read their own bill.

Reid, Pelosi, and Obama ALL NEED TO GO!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...140312605.html
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-07-2011, 2:55 PM Reply   
I fail to see how your link is in support of anything. It appears that the GOP wants to vote on bills for purely political purposes. How is that good? I agree with the "ALL NEED TO GO" claim, but clearly you don't mean ALL.
Old    SamIngram            10-07-2011, 3:05 PM Reply   
Re-elect James Traficant! The greatest Democrat of all time!!



US congressman George Hansen wasn't bad either...
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       10-07-2011, 3:07 PM Reply   
my link shows that the once again, the dems will reach deep in the bag of tricks to get what they want. The dem leadership dont care. they just want it their way
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-07-2011, 3:33 PM Reply   
Cliff, you're half right.
Old    SamIngram            10-07-2011, 4:03 PM Reply   
John Connolly was pretty cool too...
Old    Baitkiller (baitkiller)      Join Date: Jan 2010       10-07-2011, 7:17 PM Reply   
Funny stuff politics.
I am a member of another forum, South East coast based fisherman. largely GOP conservative.
This group, largely West Coast and left leaning.
Personally, i could give a shizat.
What i do know is that current policies be they new or old are throttling small business.
I also know that if you want to create jobs and cash flow, nationwide, small companies is where it starts first and grows quickest.
Sorry no link, no UCLA study. Just my opinion.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-08-2011, 7:07 AM Reply   
The teabaggers are going to end up costing the GOP candidate for president the election. Bachman, done. Perry, done. Worst thing Cain can do is affiliate himself with that fizzling movement.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-09-2011, 1:17 PM Reply   
The best chance the GOP has right now is if this Solyndra thing blows up big.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       10-09-2011, 2:53 PM Reply   
Solyndra doesn't really matter as far as any of us are concerned. The GOP is not for lower spending, they just prioritize different things while raising spending. Democrat vs. republican is just two different shades of communism. Each side will advance their own preferred method of communism more quickly, but stiull advance the other party's preferred style of communism though at a slower rate. I know of only one candidate who is entirely for individual liberty and small government, the principles this country was founded on.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-09-2011, 6:26 PM Reply   
I wasn't referring to the GOP being better with spending. Just that they may have the opportunity to do some puppet mastering with it. And I agree both parties suck. And both only have the goal to build a bigger more bloated govt.
Old    D. Cooper (dcooper)      Join Date: Mar 2005       10-10-2011, 11:00 AM Reply   
We need at least one more viable political party. This chosing between Republicans and Democrats is not much of a choice.
Old    plhorn (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       10-10-2011, 11:20 AM Reply   
We need to have instant runoff elections so that the little guys have a real chance to win elections.
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       10-10-2011, 11:35 AM Reply   
Sam,

Do you mean the James Traficant who was found guilty of several crimes and served a 7 year prison term?
Old    SamIngram            10-10-2011, 3:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by strife View Post
Sam,

Do you mean the James Traficant who was found guilty of several crimes and served a 7 year prison term?
Yes sir! The only person in US History to successfully defend themselves against a RICO charge. Most of the politicians that I like are called crooks...

James Traficant - He always fought for the little guy and always told it how it was on the House floor. Watch the youtube video...

US congressman George Hansen - He fought to eliminate the IRS. He was found guilty on charges of failing to include transactions on federal disclosure forms (Something Charles Rangel did). While Hansen was in jail they literally tortured him with something called "Diesel Therapy". After spending a total of 15 months in Federal Prison his conviction was over turned. This is the guy who went to Tehran to free the hostages (he did this as a common citizen without government authority) but ultimately Carter got pissed off at him and told him to come home.

From Wikipedia:
Diesel therapy is a form of punishment in which prisoners are shackled and then transported for days or weeks. It has been described as "the cruelest aspect of being a federal inmate." It has been alleged that some inmates are deliberately sent to incorrect destinations as an exercise of diesel therapy. Voluntary surrender at the prison where the inmate will serve his time is recommended as a way of avoiding diesel therapy.

John Connally was the Governor of Texas. The Hunt Brother's and him tried to free us from the Federal Reserve by creating their own currency based initially on silver and then on hard assets...

I doubt you are interested in any of this though... you discuss politics like it really matters...

I have a couple of questions for you;

What kind of government do we have here in The United States of America?

What is the difference between a Republic vs. a Democracy?

Why is this important? What is the largest minority in the US? or the World?

Finally, I would like to suggest some reading for those who are interested in how we got in our current mess...

The first thing I think people should read is the case of Gwin v. Breedlove, 43 US 29 - Supreme Court 1844.

This decision was probably the initial ruling that changed our currency from one of account, to one of worthless paper. Formerly the CONTROL and CREATION of money was left in the hands of the people. This ruling basically led to the conversion to United States Notes, redeemable in gold and silver coin, transferred the control of "money" creation into the hands of our government employees. This left them the power to manufacture whatever amount of paper currency they wished to manipulate the economy. It is a very dangerous policy to leave decisions of "money" creation in the hands of irresponsible politicians.

From 1844 to 1861, Congress fully adhered to the hard currency system of the Constitution and the Coinage Act of 1792. Aside from the Treasury Notes of 1815 and 1844, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional, Congress did not sway from the constitutional path until the Civil War broke out.

The urgent need to fund the war pressured Salmon P. Chase to issue Treasury Notes that were unconstitutional: the infamous Greenbacks. Later, as a Supreme Court Justice, Chase himself ruled that his act of issuing Greenbacks was unconstitutional: one of the court's greater moments of justice. The decision was later overturned!

Next I suggest everyone read about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

This act did the following:
1. Converted the manufacturing of United States Notes by the United States Department of Treasury to Federal Reserve Notes by the Federal Reserve Board, a private corporation.

2. Provided for the ownership of the manufactured Federal Reserve Notes to remain with the Federal Reserve, a private corporation. These Notes are loaned — not sold — to the United States government at full face value.

3. Provided that an annual interest/rent charge is to be paid by the United States government, in gold, to the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, for the use of their Federal Reserve Notes.

This was basically a payoff from President Wilson (the SOB) to the private bankers who backed him for office.

Next I suggest reading about the Voluntary Victory Tax Act of 1942.

In 1942, the Voluntary Victory Tax Act was passed, allowing for a voluntary payment of Income Tax by all to help fund World War II. Until that time, there was no basis for leveling a direct tax against the earnings of individuals. This was a temporary measure and was repealed May 29th, 1944 by section 6 of Income Tax Act of 1944. Of course, the government forgot to advise the people. They just kept on sending out Income Tax Returns and allowing people to assess themselves for the Voluntary Income Tax!

This was the beginning of what is now known as the Federal Income Tax.

We are in the position that we are now in because we failed to follow the Constitution of United States of America..

Again, I ask you the following questions:

What kind of government do we have here in The United States of America?

What is the difference between a Republic vs. a Democracy?

Why is this important? What is the largest minority in the US? or the World?
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-10-2011, 4:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Again, I ask you the following questions:

What kind of government do we have here in The United States of America?

What is the difference between a Republic vs. a Democracy?

Why is this important? What is the largest minority in the US? or the World?
Democratic Republic.

Democracy is rule of the majority while a Republic is fashioned to protect the rights of the minority. While simplified this is the main premise.

I'm guessing your last question is trying to lead someone into some sort of debate so why not you just answer them for everyone...
Old    SamIngram            10-10-2011, 4:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Democratic Republic.

Democracy is rule of the majority while a Republic is fashioned to protect the rights of the minority. While simplified this is the main premise.

I'm guessing your last question is trying to lead someone into some sort of debate so why not you just answer them for everyone...
You guessed wrong! I was trying to lead someone into actually thinking for themselves and researching the answer. People will not listen to what I have to say, because I said it. Some people will however think about the questions, and a few will actually research them.

If you go out on the street and ask people what type of government we have, well over half will say that we have a democracy, not a republic. To go along with your explanation, I would also say that the individual is the largest minority.

For anyone actually interested in this stuff I would suggest reading Chapter 3 of Lindsey Williams crazy book Syndrome of Control; Freedom vs. Slavery - Republic vs. Democracy starting on page 64. This is a somewhat crazy conspiracy theory book, but I think this chapter was done very well. When reading it you have to remember that Lindsey Williams is a pastor, so it has some religious stuff in it, you can ignore that stuff if you want.
Old    SamIngram            10-10-2011, 4:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Democratic Republic.

Democracy is rule of the majority while a Republic is fashioned to protect the rights of the minority. While simplified this is the main premise.

I'm guessing your last question is trying to lead someone into some sort of debate so why not you just answer them for everyone...
BTW, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democratic Republic...
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-10-2011, 5:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
BTW, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democratic Republic...
You're trying to split hairs that do not exist in this statement. We could further describe things as a Constitutional Democratic Federal Republic and still be correct. But either way still describes the basic concept of a hybrid form of governance that emphasizes checks and balances to prevent tyranny of the majority and protect individual liberties.

Last edited by norcalrider; 10-10-2011 at 5:09 PM.
Old    SamIngram            10-10-2011, 5:24 PM Reply   
No i am not... If someone wanted to learn more and they googled one versus the other you get differing results...
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-10-2011, 5:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
No i am not... If someone wanted to learn more and they googled one versus the other you get differing results...
Wikipedia doesn't hold all the answers nor does google. Even in political theory you will see the terms intertwined and mixed. Neither term is a perfect descriptor, as they are used to describe a hybrid of traditional forms/theories of governance. To try and generalize here is foolish but to debate with you on such a ridiculous nuance is equally foolish.
Old    SamIngram            10-10-2011, 7:06 PM Reply   
So Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Ben Franklin were wrong when describing the US Constitution as a "Constitutional Republic". Good to know... Thanks.
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       10-10-2011, 8:31 PM Reply   
Sam, I agree with some of what your saying. I'm a fan of Gore Vidal and have read several of his books.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-10-2011, 8:39 PM Reply   
1.) I never said it was wrong to describe our government as a Constitutional Republic and I would appreciate it if you did not try to read into my comments as such. I did say you were splitting hairs where there are no hairs to split. No need to be flippant or condescending either.

2.) Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and other founders were affiliated with the "Democratic-Republican Party." All the terms mentioned still work as a descriptor for our hybrid style of governance, to claim that Constitutional Republic is the sole and perfect descriptor would be incorrect. In fact it is too simplistic but so is democratic republic, representative democracy, presidential republic, federal republic and so on. However, they are all close, mostly right and depending on the pressing issues at that point in history can/could/were used to describe this country.
Old    SamIngram            10-10-2011, 9:08 PM Reply   
So you can read into my posts, but i cant read into yours??
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-11-2011, 7:59 AM Reply   
Sam, your quizing style isn't communicating anything. If you want to communicate you should clearly state your case. Implying you know more than others and telling them to go read up is the quickest way to have your input discounted as incoherent rambling.
Old    SamIngram            10-11-2011, 10:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by strife View Post
Sam, I agree with some of what your saying. I'm a fan of Gore Vidal and have read several of his books.
LOL, have you seen the old videos where he gets his butt handed to him by William Frank Buckley, Jr.? Those videos are great...

John,
I couldn't communicate anything to you if my life depended on it, IMO your mind seems to be made up already, and is effectively closed.. Jeremy is even worse... That is your prerogative though, many, many people have gone through life with their minds already made up... Your's is not my problem.

I guess my main point is that our Liberty was sold out through a series of events throughout our history. The Federal Reserve owns this country lock, stock, and barrel... hell, they even own the ammo. Without actually researching the facts of what has actually happened in our country we will continue down the same path... What we are seeing now is the beginning of full blown Marxism in this country. From here on we will have to decide on either Liberty or Marxism. We are starting to see more and more calls for "Social Justice" in this country. "Social Justice" is where the man in charge decides who gets what. Once "Social Justice" gets a foothold the violence starts, it has gone the same way in EVERY Marxist society in history. Look up the French Revolution. Do you know how they solved unemployment and homelessness before the revolution? They killed them! Unless we know history, we are destined to repeat it.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-11-2011, 10:48 AM Reply   
Have you read Marx or are you just throwing out the term to invoke emotions from the cold war? Do understand the influence that liberty had on the French Revolution and that the French Revolution had on the founding fathers? Your argument doesn't make any sense and is laden with rhetoric that shows a lack of understanding and historical context for the ideas you speak so profoundly about.

Look, I'm a staunch believer in liberty but your arguments lack logic and historical context. Maybe it is because this was my field of study and is my career field (fallacy alert: appeal to authority) that I find your comments detrimental to the causes you support. It is this rhetoric that gives conservatives a bad name.

Sam, as an advocate of the Founding Fathers and their principles, how much time have you spent reading some of the political theorist/philosophers that influenced them?

Social Justice in concept is simply biblical. In practice and rhetoric it may evolve into taxation policy you disagree with or social laws that constrain some liberty but at this point it is not winning out over liberty.

In terms of the Federal Reserve, we no longer live in an agrarian society that our Founders lived in and in order to maintain the Republic we have had to evolve. Are there issues there? Sure, but not as catastrophic as you make it out.

It's one thing to debate theory and another to debate policy. One cannot conflate the two without getting tripped up. If you look at the theory and philosophies of our founding fathers versus their actual policy when they held offices or appointed posts you will find quickly that progress for the greater good required and requires intelligent compromise.

Fortunately for you and us, our governance structure generally lacks the ability to move swiftly in any direction very much keeping the keel level.
Old    SamIngram            10-11-2011, 11:30 AM Reply   
Have I ever read Marx...lol...
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-11-2011, 12:15 PM Reply   
Then you know Marxism has never been realized and most socialist societies that were focused on achieving communism have had capitalist revolutions in recent years? Further making your claims of sliding into marxism outlandish.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-11-2011, 12:15 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
John,
I couldn't communicate anything to you if my life depended on it, IMO your mind seems to be made up already, and is effectively closed..
If that's the cause you should be able to state my position to demonstrate that you know what I think. I doubt you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
I guess my main point is that our Liberty was sold out through a series of events throughout our history. The Federal Reserve owns this country lock, stock, and barrel... hell, they even own the ammo. Without actually researching the facts of what has actually happened in our country we will continue down the same path... What we are seeing now is the beginning of full blown Marxism in this country.
I think you are in the ozone. A govt bought by corp is full blown Marxism? Is that what all your research has taught you? Or it is your puppet masters who told you that.

We have a govt bought by greed and special interests. We have a govt that uses the psychology of divide and conquer, and is supported by the media. There are lots of ways to divide and conquer the public. You feed them a load of lies about protecting them and you can build huge agencies and a bloated military. You convince them that our miitary might is for the good so if we kill 10,000 people trying to spread democracy that's preferable to a dictator killing 10,001 with evil intentions.

Corporate welfare is rampant. Our ridiculously overinflated healthcare system that's destroying the country is the result of corporate welfare, not Marxism. It's easily provable. So if your point is that I'm close minded because I don't believe we are a full blown Marxist govt then I think you are a gullible sheep. Yes, even Libertarians can be sheep. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on, too much listening to other people and not using your brain makes you a sheep.

The govt will continue to grow and continue to support unfunded pension plans for it's workers to buy their vote. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is who they pander to for votes. Both parties are in the pockets of corporations. Congress doesn't know anything about what they are doing. They simply write laws they lobbyists tell them need writing. They grow agencies because heads of govt like to fantasize that they are CEOs and the goal of any corp is to grow and dominate.

Your Marxist bulls**t is just an example of cluelessness. It's just the opposite. These are the kinds of economic conditions that lead to Marxist call for revolution. To claim that we are already there is nothing short of bizarre.

The irony here is that we both want the same thing... smaller govt. But we have opposite views of why we don't have smaller govt. You think the communists won and I think that the natural course of human nature is greed, and it has nothing to do with socialism. You don't have to be a socialist to believe that corps shouldn't pollute the environment. But you have to be a realist to understand that it's that same capital mindset that leads govt to believe it should be a like a corp. The difference is that profits enable corp to grow. It only takes ignorance and deception for gov to grow.

Your blinders lead you to believe that the Constitution is only supposed to protect you from socialism. Well you'd better open your eyes because it should be protecting you from greed and corruption as well. Unfortunately the Constitution is nothing more than a tool to placate the ignorant. We believe it has teeth but that is a deception as well. The Supreme Court is a sad joke and the Constitution means very little.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-11-2011, 12:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Your blinders lead you to believe that the Constitution is only supposed to protect you from socialism. Well you'd better open your eyes because it should be protecting you from greed and corruption as well. Unfortunately the Constitution is nothing more than a tool to placate the ignorant. We believe it has teeth but that is a deception as well. The Supreme Court is a sad joke and the Constitution means very little.
Huh? This makes almost as much sense as what Sam has been writing.

The Constitution is an expression of Natural Law which was only theorized up to that point. Your disregard for the meaningful transition of rights to the citizens established by the Constitution reflects a misunderstanding of the need for this document. I can understand your distress due to current economic and political strife but your discontent is misdirected. As for the Supreme Court, I'm not sure where your discontent comes from and find it disheartening considering that the Court has been a better steward of Natural Law than the Presidency and Congress.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-11-2011, 12:58 PM Reply   
"John,
I couldn't communicate anything to you if my life depended on it, IMO your mind seems to be made up already, and is effectively closed.. Jeremy is even worse..."

How did I get drug into this???
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-11-2011, 1:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Huh? This makes almost as much sense as what Sam has been writing.
Because the SCOTUS thinks corp are people, that the cops can bust down your door without a warrant as long as their say they hear evidence being destroyed, that the state has the right to withhold evidence of your innocence when prosecuting you, and using far fetched claims of protecting interstate commerce when taking away the rights of the people. IOW, the Constitution only has meaning if the court that interprets it is competent and unbiased. Of which neither appear to be the case.

Here's the latest.... the Federal Govt can now makes laws of which the interpretation of the law is classified.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1005021.html

Wouldn't surprise me if the courst gave that a thumbs up.

The point is that if the validity of the Constitution only has meaning after the SCOTUS validates it, and the SC blatantly disregards what's in the Constitution, then what purpose does the Constitution serve? My claim is that it only serves to placate people into believing that the Constitution protects their rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
The Constitution is an expression of Natural Law which was only theorized up to that point. Your disregard for the meaningful transition of rights to the citizens established by the Constitution reflects a misunderstanding of the need for this document.
So you claim that I have a disregard for the meaningful transition of rights to the people? It isn't me that makes the Constitution a trivial document. I don't translate the document into a meaningful legal rights of the people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
I can understand your distress due to current economic and political strife but your discontent is misdirected. As for the Supreme Court, I'm not sure where your discontent comes from and find it disheartening considering that the Court has been a better steward of Natural Law than the Presidency and Congress.
They should... it's their job to tell the President and Congress if they are legal. IMO they are not doing so well. YMMV and apparently does.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-11-2011, 2:39 PM Reply   
That's a fallacy of composition. A few decisions do not define the entire institution nor does it condemn the society or Constitution.
Old    SamIngram            10-11-2011, 2:41 PM Reply   
If the Constitution was actually followed, all of the above comments would be moot... both of you are correct to an extent. The greatest problem I see in every discussion, every protest, every debate, etc... is that fact the participants are ignorant regarding history and what the Constitution actually says and means... Many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters have legitimate gripes based in liberty, but don't understand the real problem, instead they blame capitalism, etc... and advocate for more government control. Today on the news I saw one lady that said our form of government doesn't work and that we need a new constitution. I don't think I have ever heard a more scary statement... we just need to follow the original design... The Constitution says that everyone has to be judged equally under the law...

The people originally had the power to interpret the Constitution, not the Supreme Court.

From the above mentioned book:

3. Trials are by common law juries, naturally empowered to decide all issues of law and fact in cases brought before them. The judge or sheriff would act as a referee, but could not control the presentation of arguments on law and fact. This is the final and most important check and balance against unconstitutional acts of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches
of government. In true common law jury proceedings, the jury has the power to nullify any unconstitutional or immoral law passed and signed into law by the government. (Have you noticed that the Supreme Court, somewhere down the line, has appropriated as its personal right the responsibility for determining what is or is not constitutional?) In other words, the jury in
a true Republic has more power than the President of the United States. Unfortunately, we no longer have trials by common law jury. In order for a Democracy to exist, our government had to replace trials by common law jury with mock trials by jury, whereby juries are not allowed to decide issues of law, or to hear any evidence that might lead the jury to decide against the government. If you don't believe this, go to a trial. You will hear the Judge of the Court require the jury to take an oath to accept the law as dictated by the Judge of the Court.

P.S.
I am sorry for arguing stupid stuff, it is my nature to argue on every detail if I something is wrong... that is what I get paid to do...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-11-2011, 3:05 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
That's a fallacy of composition. A few decisions do not define the entire institution nor does it condemn the society or Constitution.
Well you certainly cleared that up. IOW, you really can't say one way or the other.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-11-2011, 3:11 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Well you certainly cleared that up. IOW, you really can't say one way or the other.
If you look at the whole docket from last year, the SCOTUS found in favor of individual rights. But to highlight 2 decisions as an indication of the degradation of the institution is fallacious and reminiscent of cable news programming. A complete analysis would show that basic constitutional principles and the bill of rights were upheld.

Last edited by norcalrider; 10-11-2011 at 3:14 PM.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-11-2011, 3:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters have legitimate gripes based in liberty, but don't understand the real problem, instead they blame capitalism, etc... and advocate for more government control. Today on the news I saw one lady that said our form of government doesn't work and that we need a new constitution.
I think you will get as many opinions of what OWS is about as there are people offering their opinion. My impression isn't that they want more govt control as they are complaining about the govt control being dictated by deep capitalist pockets. If govt can control itself, become more efficient, and effective at serving the people then yeah I want more govt control... of itself.

What people should be doing is not having a knee jerk reaction to OWS. Recognize that first and foremost the govt has lost the ability to operate with honestly and integrity. Then try to find common ground between multiple groups and focus on fixing bad govt. To simply label the OWS'rs as self serving, lazy, and only wanting something for free is exactly what the puppet masters want. Divert your attention from the real seat of power, fraud, and waste by feuding with your fellow citizens. I can't think of a better status quo to maintain for controlling the population.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-11-2011, 3:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
A complete analysis would show that basic constitutional principles and the bill of rights were upheld.
Feel free to make one.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-11-2011, 4:08 PM Reply   
As a professor once lectured, "don't use second-hand information, when first-hand information is available." Here's your source for analysis: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       10-11-2011, 8:36 PM Reply   
Sam,

Buckley while witty and obviously intelligent, was a real scum bag and your colors really shine with your subjective comment. He was a racist, homophobe, and sadist. I would argue that Vidal won that debate. Buckley was against the right to assembly, right to free speech, and in his later years wanted to censor the internet.


"The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic."

Willam F Buckley Jr.

That comment speaks volumes in itself.



And btw, not even constitutional scholars can agree on the constitution!!
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-12-2011, 8:48 AM Reply   
I find it funny that the teabaggers take issue with the OWS'ers.

I actually watched the GOP debates last night, and the amount of contradictory statements I heard had me scratching my head. It is funny to watch Bachman and Perry continue to fall.

My question is to the evangelicals: So if Mitt gets the nomination, do you then vote for Obama since he is the Christian candidate? Does religion or party come first?
Old    Randy Paul (wakeskatethis)      Join Date: May 2011       10-12-2011, 8:56 AM Reply   
http://youtu.be/4ekotwKRUAs
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       10-12-2011, 9:01 AM Reply   
do you then vote for Obama since he is the Christian candidate?

NO

We don't vote for Obama no matter who is running!
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-12-2011, 9:01 AM Reply   
If the OWS'ers didn't carry around signs sponsored by pslweb.org, and shout for equal pay, maybe they would be taken a little more seriously. Its also interesting that these people are holding signs that say 99%ers. Don't they mean 9%ers? What job lets people sit downtown and protest all day? If I was a 9%, I would at least be out looking for a job.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-12-2011, 10:47 AM Reply   
I still feel offended by the term teabaggers. That is a sexual act.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-12-2011, 11:49 AM Reply   
"We don't vote for Obama no matter who is running!"

Are you an evangelical?

"I still feel offended by the term teabaggers. That is a sexual act."

I thought the name came from the silly hats they wear with tea bags attached to them.
Old    Nauti 210 (brett33)      Join Date: Apr 2011       10-12-2011, 12:54 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
do you then vote for Obama since he is the Christian candidate?

NO

We don't vote for Obama no matter who is running!
been saying this since 2008..
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       10-12-2011, 7:57 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
I What job lets people sit downtown and protest all day? If I was a 9%, I would at least be out looking for a job.
I think that's part of the point... They don't have jobs and the people they are protesting are at least partially responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-13-2011, 12:32 AM Reply   
I was under the impression the tea bagger name was a snarky little play on the tea partier name. Trying to put the sex act into a close enough context as a backhanded joke that most of the public does not really know about. Could be wrong.

On your evanjelical question. Between a Mitt and Obama, why would any Christian person even consider voting for Obama. He has taken down every Christian item at every one of his speeches. He even made them take them down when he spoke at Notre Dame. Talking about letting your liberalism kill you. Notre Dame of all places, you would think God is above all government and would not yield to taking down the symbols of their core value just so a man would speak there. But they did and he expected them to. Then the very first thing Obama signed into office was for the United States to fund abortions around the world. Trust me, I don't think Mitt has anything to worry about if he is against Obama in the case of hard core Christians. Now Mitt may have issues in the primaries with them, but not if it is him and Obama.

On the OWS people. I have not been keeping up with this bunch. All I can say from the people I have met in California from my time here, is I have never met such a large number of people who's idea was not to go to college and figure they were just going to hang out and get a job. I had to get into school and then move 2400 miles as a 19 year old and make my own way for a better life. I would be interested in seeing what these protesters have done besides smoke weed and protest. I bet many of them are military aged or could go to school for retraining. I would hedge my bets that most of them do not want to do the hard thing to get by. Hate to tell them but things did not get real fat with jobs unless we were flush with foreign investment in companies like in the 90's or a fake real estate market (also flush with foreign money) during the 2000's. That is just the way it is.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-13-2011, 12:56 AM Reply   
Also, I don't really understand how Wall Street is really responsible for people losing their jobs. Jobs get created by the movement of money. If not for investment by these people, their would not have been jobs in the first place. What people are mad about is the policies allowed them to overheat the market beyond substainable levels. Money is always going to seek the path of least resistance. That is a fact. Ask how many of these people at the protest consider themselves environmentalists. Well, guess what. There is a certain point where idealism is going to cost jobs. Passing more and more regulation will cost money especially when there are less costly alternatives (China, Mexico). Then we passed a "health care" bill that is reported to be roughly 1/6th the budget of the government. Well, that is money out of the middle classes pocket. The bill means healthy workers will now be mandated to pay their share of this and that is money out of circulation for buying product and will be stockpiled by insurance companies to hedge against losses.

I think it is back to education. We do not teach money in schools. We have somehow got fixated on liberal arts and have not taught people how money works.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-13-2011, 7:57 AM Reply   
I think it's more than Wall Street

I think it's funny how regulating an industry that benefits from the govt steering people's retirement money into their hands is a problem. But regulation that creates overinflated prices isn't. The entire health care industry would collapse if it had to exist in a free market. It's only the govt regulation that allows hyper inflation in healthcare from several fronts. The most obvious and easily understood is tax codes for health insurance. Do two things and the industry would transform overnight from govt welfare to real competition.

That being...

1) remove all tax exemptions for HI contributions. IOW fully tax (FICA and fed income) both the employee and employer contribution.
2) Since the employer contribution is a wage now, allow the employee to opt out and take his wage.

Do that and you will see that the free market will not allow HI companies to exist at the current rates.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-13-2011, 8:46 AM Reply   
"He even made them take them down when he spoke at Notre Dame."

Please produce any evidence of this claim.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-13-2011, 9:15 AM Reply   
[QUOTE=strife;1713531]I think that's part of the point... They don't have jobs and the people they are protesting are at least partially responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs.[/QUOTE

Go look up plsweb.org and tell me what these clowns are protesting for.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-13-2011, 9:48 AM Reply   
Paul, are you suggesting that the protesters all speak with a single unified message?
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-13-2011, 12:00 PM Reply   
lol. I guess that would be asking way to much.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-13-2011, 11:55 PM Reply   
Jeremy, it was big news when it happened. Put this in your pipe....

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10501

http://blog.acton.org/archives/9843-...ent-obama.html

Actually this is about Georgetown:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...eorgetown.html
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-14-2011, 3:25 AM Reply   
^Your candafreepress link did not work. The 2nd and 3rd links speak of Georgetown University, not Notre Dame. I'm still waiting for something to put into my pipe...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-14-2011, 3:32 AM Reply   
"Go look up plsweb.org and tell me what these clowns are protesting for."



This guy doesn't sound like a clown to me.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-14-2011, 5:07 AM Reply   
Well, the canada press does speak about him requiring Notre Dame to be religious neutral when he spoke their including covering touchdown Jesus. The info is there, I provide proof that he does this. To say he does not is putting your head in the sand.

What do these wall street people protestors think is going to happen. Money has moved to the easiest places based on the share the wealth policies setup by the government. Obama has openly advocated class warfare and has introduce several laws and regulation that are simply not business friendly and they wonder why jobs and investment money is not making it's way into America? They have been working the global angle for a long time and the democrats open campaign for it and now they are mad that it happened? Time for them to change their voting habits because what they want and vote for is exactly what middle class people like me have been trying to warn about.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-14-2011, 7:28 AM Reply   
The link is blocked, Wake.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-14-2011, 8:28 AM Reply   
Someone, please tell me you aren't referring to that photo that is on the Canada Press link. A kindergardener could tell that is a photo-shop. Touchdown Jesus was never "covered" during Obama's visit.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-14-2011, 9:58 AM Reply   
They should be protesting the Democratic Headquarters not Wall Street. The Dems.--like always--"knee jerked" the bailout plan, so plenty of mismanaged money got leaked out, but somehow I'm sure the bailouts were Bush's fault. Someone Else's Canadian link may be photo shopped--I'm not experienced enough to tell--but I Googled his speech and found numerous lonks referring to the same thing http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=12578
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-14-2011, 10:03 AM Reply   
Here's a link referring to touchdown Jesus http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/a...ed-to-cov.html
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-14-2011, 10:08 AM Reply   
Kind of like the Bush administration knee-jerked us into a multi trillion dollar war? Seriously, laying the blame on one party only suggests that the other one is on the right track. We should be past that by now. Didn't both Bush and Obama teach us anything?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-14-2011, 11:43 AM Reply   
Ron T. You managed to post two links that say nothing about Touchdown Jesus being covered. One other thing, who was president when TARP was approved?
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-15-2011, 6:20 AM Reply   
The inscription is on a pediment on the stage in Gaston Hall where the speech was given. The White House had asked the school to remove or cover all signs and symbols that would appear behind the President while he delivered his speech on the economy, according to an April 15, 2009 CNS News article.

David Brody of CBN said he was told by the White House that the intent, however, was not to cover the religious symbols in particular or to leave Christ out of the picture. It was to drape the platform in a simple black background with American Flags on display. Brody said there were 26 other religious symbols in Gaston Hall that were not covered and that were visible in some pictures taken at the speech. The White House told Brody, “The President appreciated the gracious hosts at Georgetown University where he delivered his speech on the state of the economy. Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply false.”



That was a policy speech, actions were consistent with other speeches. Touchdown Jesus was never covered (nor visible since the commencement didn't even take place in the stadium) nor were any such requests made since it was an invitation to do a commencement address and not an official policy speech. Just a bunch of stupid bloggers getting people like Rod all frothy at the mouth, like this idiot who took Michelle Malkin's photoshopped joke and passed it off as truth: http://dougpowers.com/2009/03/24/notre-dame/
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-15-2011, 5:23 PM Reply   
Of course items are visible from other photos. Notice that is was not official photo's of the president. Of course one of his policy people are not say that out loud because it would stupid to say it. I thought the fact he goes out of his way to prove he is religiously neutral was one that people like you like about him. Now you are not standing behind the fact he does this? Look I can tell you all sorts of reasons regarding covering this and that, but, he is who he is and if that makes him less electable then so be it, but, don't lie about it.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-16-2011, 9:25 AM Reply   
Covering all symbols behind the President during a speech is a very plausible explanation. I'm much more skeptical about people claiming something sinister about it. The lack of substance in people's beliefs and the need to make something out of nothing is strong in this partisan atmosphere.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-18-2011, 3:18 PM Reply   
We have debunked what Someone else and Ron T were saying about ND and Georgetown. Wonder else they believe that we can debunk??
Old    Randy Paul (wakeskatethis)      Join Date: May 2011       10-18-2011, 8:28 PM Reply   
one day you all shall wake up to reality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhMacPvc5qc

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:48 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us