in the 80's
in [Design]
|
From: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian on 2 Aug 2010 18:55 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:04:52 -0500, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:58:30 -0500, "amdx" <amdx(a)knology.net> wrote: > > <don't put the sig-separator at the beginning!> > >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >>news:eur856dm7piopl6jp6mdot9qmkgfdo7bjk(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:28:41 -0500, "amdx" <amdx(a)knology.net> wrote: >>> >>>>in the 80's.... we had Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, and Johnny Cash. Now we >>>>have >>>>Obama, No Hope, and No Cash.. >>> >>> ...but we do have change. Believe it! >> >> I prefer to Believe the voters will make a Change in November. >>Remember republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday. > > Even if every Demonicrat did (vote on Wednesdays), Franken would still be > in the Senate. Who needs voters when you have ACORN? I wish the Libertarians could get some press. The right-wing are anti-choice theocrats who are addicted to war. They're all happy with guns, but want to legislate or dictate away the rights that the guns are there to protect! Thanks, Rich
From: dagmargoodboat on 2 Aug 2010 23:02 On Aug 2, 5:55 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <freedom_...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:04:52 -0500, k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:58:30 -0500, "amdx" <a...(a)knology.net> wrote: > > > <don't put the sig-separator at the beginning!> > > >><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message > >>news:eur856dm7piopl6jp6mdot9qmkgfdo7bjk(a)4ax.com... > >>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:28:41 -0500, "amdx" <a...(a)knology.net> wrote: > > >>>>in the 80's.... we had Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, and Johnny Cash. Now we > >>>>have > >>>>Obama, No Hope, and No Cash.. > > >>> ...but we do have change. Believe it! > > >> I prefer to Believe the voters will make a Change in November. > >>Remember republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday. > > > Even if every Demonicrat did (vote on Wednesdays), Franken would still be > > in the Senate. Who needs voters when you have ACORN? > > I wish the Libertarians could get some press. The right-wing are > anti-choice theocrats who are addicted to war. > > They're all happy with guns, but want to legislate or dictate away the > rights that the guns are there to protect! The party in power wants to dismantle the Constitution, the crucial, key, fruit of the American Revolution, the very wellspring of our freedom, our Magna Carta, the People's guarantee. And they're doing it, massively. They're seizing people's property. They're seizing people's assets. Last Thursday they came within 3 or 4 votes of effectively outlawing speech by their political opponents. Elena Kagan thinks Congress can order you to eat three fruits and vegetables a day, constitutionally, under the Commerce clause. The White House wants to give the FBI unfettered access to your web surfing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html So, who's really threatening your liberty? James Arthur
From: krw on 2 Aug 2010 23:14 On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:02:42 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Aug 2, 5:55�pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian ><freedom_...(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:04:52 -0500, k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:58:30 -0500, "amdx" <a...(a)knology.net> wrote: >> >> > <don't put the sig-separator at the beginning!> >> >> >><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >> >>news:eur856dm7piopl6jp6mdot9qmkgfdo7bjk(a)4ax.com... >> >>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:28:41 -0500, "amdx" <a...(a)knology.net> wrote: >> >> >>>>in the 80's.... we had Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, and Johnny Cash. Now we >> >>>>have >> >>>>Obama, No Hope, and No Cash.. >> >> >>> ...but we do have change. �Believe it! >> >> >> �I prefer to Believe the voters will make a Change in November. >> >>Remember republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday. >> >> > Even if every Demonicrat did (vote on Wednesdays), Franken would still be >> > in the Senate. �Who needs voters when you have ACORN? >> >> I wish the Libertarians could get some press. The right-wing are >> anti-choice theocrats who are addicted to war. >> >> They're all happy with guns, but want to legislate or dictate away the >> rights that the guns are there to protect! > >The party in power wants to dismantle the Constitution, the crucial, >key, fruit of the American Revolution, the very wellspring of our >freedom, our Magna Carta, the People's guarantee. And they're doing >it, massively. > >They're seizing people's property. They're seizing people's assets. >Last Thursday they came within 3 or 4 votes of effectively outlawing >speech by their political opponents. > >Elena Kagan thinks Congress can order you to eat three fruits and >vegetables a day, constitutionally, under the Commerce clause. Commerce clause? That's so last century. http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-government-can-do-most-anything-in-this-country/ >The White House wants to give the FBI unfettered access to your web >surfing: >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html > >So, who's really threatening your liberty? > > >James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 3 Aug 2010 06:34 On Aug 2, 10:14 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:02:42 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >They're seizing people's property. They're seizing people's assets. > >Last Thursday they came within 3 or 4 votes of effectively outlawing > >speech by their political opponents. > > >Elena Kagan thinks Congress can order you to eat three fruits and > >vegetables a day, constitutionally, under the Commerce clause. > > Commerce clause? That's so last century. > > http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-governme... It's only recently that I understood--by careful study--how good (and timeless) a control system the Constitution was, the checks it keeps on the natures and ambitions of men, and how far we've drifted from it. Hardly anyone gets that, as demonstrated by that congressman. Sworn to uphold the Constitution, he has no idea what it even says. And he doesn't care, he doesn't understand its importance, that the feedbacks and safeties must not be ignored or the thing goes unstable and rails. I can't say I was much different, but it wasn't my job. I think it was miso(a)sushi who pointed out the National Security Letters phenomenon as a Bush outrage. Okay, that's queasy. But Mr. Hope and Change isn't backing down, he's expanding it. Here's that link again about the White House wanting to give the FBI unfettered access to your web surfing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html "The statute as written causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary litigation," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. "This clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993." i.e., Congress wrote a law in 1993 intending to track terrorists' web- surfing? Puh-leeze. That's simply the Big Lie. So many other things today are too. All this talk about enemies and the need to intercept plots is Orwellian, of a different era, and a big mistake. Such paranoid drivel is what we once heard from despots behind the Iron Curtain-- always an emergency, always some outside threat to The People, always justifying some new intrusion against them, or excusing some failure of hope or change. I was there. Bush threw the door open, and Mr. Obama's pouring through. This is big stuff--we're not just being spent to China, we're losing our republic.
From: krw on 3 Aug 2010 19:20
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:34:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Aug 2, 10:14�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:02:42 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >They're seizing people's property. �They're seizing people's assets. >> >Last Thursday they came within 3 or 4 votes of effectively outlawing >> >speech by their political opponents. >> >> >Elena Kagan thinks Congress can order you to eat three fruits and >> >vegetables a day, constitutionally, under the Commerce clause. >> >> Commerce clause? �That's so last century. >> >> http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-governme... > >It's only recently that I understood--by careful study--how good (and >timeless) a control system the Constitution was, the checks it keeps >on the natures and ambitions of men, and how far we've drifted from >it. We were taught such things in school. That was before "Heather has Two Mommys" took the place of Civics. >Hardly anyone gets that, as demonstrated by that congressman. Sworn >to uphold the Constitution, he has no idea what it even says. And he >doesn't care, he doesn't understand its importance, that the feedbacks >and safeties must not be ignored or the thing goes unstable and >rails. I can't say I was much different, but it wasn't my job. They don't care. They want the world to work they way they want. NOW! They don't care if they have to destroy everything to get their way. The don't understand that they won't, only more suffering. >I think it was miso(a)sushi who pointed out the National Security >Letters phenomenon as a Bush outrage. Okay, that's queasy. But Mr. >Hope and Change isn't backing down, he's expanding it. > >Here's that link again about the White House wanting to give the FBI >unfettered access to your web surfing: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html What about the Top-10 Hit List? >"The statute as written causes confusion and the potential for >unnecessary litigation," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. >"This clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect >new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what Congress >intended when the statute was amended in 1993." > >i.e., Congress wrote a law in 1993 intending to track terrorists' web- >surfing? Puh-leeze. That's simply the Big Lie. So many other things >today are too. > >All this talk about enemies and the need to intercept plots is >Orwellian, of a different era, and a big mistake. Such paranoid >drivel is what we once heard from despots behind the Iron Curtain-- >always an emergency, always some outside threat to The People, always >justifying some new intrusion against them, or excusing some failure >of hope or change. I was there. > >Bush threw the door open, and Mr. Obama's pouring through. > >This is big stuff--we're not just being spent to China, we're losing >our republic. If the 'R's don't take the House in November, it's gone. If they do, it prolongs the agony some. |