dmagicglock
-
Posts
1,435 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Events
Posts posted by dmagicglock
-
-
I will make you statment more accurate. Please note the parenthesis
well if we're in the business of making statements more accurate.
In 2007, Michigan had the largest number of Iraqi immigrants (36,172, or 35.3 percent), followed by California (16,715, or 16.3 percent). Together, these two states accounted for 51.7 percent (52,887) of all Iraqi-born immigrants. Illinois and Arizona also had large Iraqi-born populations.
Hardly half a million?
-
Wrong, you missed the point. They did what was necessary to become successful - expatriate.
correct but i think his argument is that under their style of government, success isn't possible. I think his frame of reference is that under that government, success wouldn't be possible, so applying possibility of success to a different model is like comparing apples to oranges?
-
The bill of rights is living document but not the constitution, and many people fought against the idea of a bill of rights. Just because prostitutes are legal in nevada doesn't make it moral, IMO anyways. God judges morality, our conscience is provided to us to lead is in the right direction. When you talk religion people freak out because they think seperation of church and state, but that was intended to prevent our government from having a state run church like "the Church of England" rather than not using religious principles to help shape the morality of our government. None the less that is a seperate issue and I digress. Here's some info regarding the argument against a bill of rights. Many people thought that if you started specifically naming rights, then one would assume that a right is not protected unless mentioned, but if you're free then you are free... so no need for a bill of rights?
"The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:
Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta", obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.[8]
Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[9]
Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included.
-
Infrastructure is still funded via social means though, regardless of the private business with which it is executed, and therefore the community is controlling the monetary resources as well as deciding where those resources are best served. Protection from a police or military presence is also a SERVICE. So, again, the government controls and provides that service as well. Unless you have your own personal bodyguards?
I agree with the Jefferson quote. But, you have to consider the context and time frame in which it was spoken. Society has changed, our country has improved and we've educated ourselves (some of us, anyway) so our societal structure will continue to evolve. A solution for 2-3 generations may not be the same as the solution for 2-3 generations in the future, and thus we change. Financial instruments have been created which no longer force the frugality of the government. Right, wrong , or indifferent - that's the way it is.
We did have a surplus the last time we had a Dem in office though
. That's frugality for ya.well infrastucture is mostly a state/local issue not a federal issue so you can try and argue its some form of socialism all you want, but the responsibility is not intended to be that of the federal government. As far as solutions for generations differs, I can agree that times have changed, but your statement is something that almost mimics people thinking that the constitution is a living document that can be interpreted differently depending on the time period. I disagree and I don't think that the founding fathers had that in mind either. You must subject yourself to a moral authority and it has to be unchanging, otherwise the constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. You can't change morality based on circumstance, either it is good in principal then and always or it is wrong in principal then and always. Otherwise our moral compass would be broken and I think the same morality should apply to legislation and government. Big government wasn't good then and still proves to be bad now.
And you know one of the ways the budget was balanced when a dem was in office and (you had a republican majority in the congress (which makes the "congressional budget") : By lowering medicare, welfare and social security benefits
-
Without forms of socialism, how are they going to have roads? And who is going to protect those roads?
well lets start with the definition of socialism:
socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
That being said, creating infrastructure which is typically outsourced to blacktop and paving companies, would not be socialism because you're paying money to a private entity to provide that infrastructure. Also, employing police to ensure community safety or military isn't necessarily controlling means of production but more or less protecting your investment. I'm not advocating no government or anarchy, but i think just as our founding fathers did, a federal government should be small as possible.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
-
^ your comp fails at interwebz, it comes up on my comp just fine, but since you can't see it.... here's the link!
-
wouldn't competition in a true free market provide the service to those who arent willing to provide it. For ex: SafeAuto provides insurance to people with terrible driving records when other insurance companies are more worried about profit and would probably deny that same person auto coverage. Yet say, a safe auto is willing to accept a smaller profit margin to run their business model.
-
haha saw this and even tho' I know I should just let this thread die, I couldn't resist posting it. It's a picture for a post card the republicans wanted to send out in response to the democratic healthcare. It was blocked by the dems because they felt it was misleading, anyways I'll let you be the judge!
-
come on Justin, seriously!? lol
I don't think you'd like it tho', he refers to things like the constitution, and founding fathers, he does kind of diss on socialism and universal healthcare
and the excessive spending that we've burden ourselves and future generations with... here's a little preview
"When Americans say that socialism is a better system than capitalism they are essentially saying they prefer to be led and fed by the state than be free. They are saying, perhaps ignorantly, that they prefer increased state control over their personal decisions because having a cap on success is an appropriate price to pay for also having a cap on failure."
-
"yea the credit card doesnt accept penis"
i thought that was f'in hilarious!
-
-
I just picked this book up yesterday at borders and it's an awesome book! It's a short book, only like 150 pages, and he brings up some great points, sometimes its hard to believe all the shitty legislation thats been passed right before our eyes until you see it in print. He was great in this book about being non partisan and clearly points out the leeching of America by both parties. Anyone else read this? If not I'd suggest you check it out!
-
1
-
-
"In his report, Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense.
An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. "In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund."
Commons sense says they're just trying to screw her any way they can? Basically he's saying if she was a nobody she could try and raise all the money she wanted, but since she is a public figure, she's not allowed to cause thats not fair to all the other poor schmucks out there? Its okay for Levi to cash in on the families fame, but Sarah can't do it herself when she needs help footing the bill for a bunch of BS ethics complaints, this one included.
Should I file an ethics complaint against incumbent politicians because they can raise more campaign money than I can because they're already well known?
Would she be sued if she used her notoriety to raise more charitable contributions (to say the United Way for example) than some normal joe schmoe? Its okay to use your notoriety for the betterment of society, but not the betterment of yourself?
-
I love the nuge! funny thing about him is he looks like a "hillbilly white trash rocker" and the guy is an absolute genius and well versed beyond most if not all politicians! good post, +1 for you
-
if she has a kid, that just means she puts out
-
-
well, from that BBC article
so is that really appeasing iran?
well as my ol' college prof Dr. Lowry would always say, "In my uniformed opinion..." yes. haha I'd have to see what part of the "security pact" is that benefits with us. What did we receive in exchange for letting them go? I know they said it wasn't part of a deal, but pact = deal.
I know this might seem like nails on a chalkboard, but I really don't think you should or can "negotiate with terrorists." It's like trying to rationalize with a criminal. It's one of the greatest mistakes you can make, to assume they think rationally or logically like you. When you do things like that, you end up becoming a victim. Not to get too off tangent tho', you bring up a good point about the security pact, I'd really have to see what that entailed on our end as well to see how this could possibly translate into a good decision.
-
here's a bbc article with similar info
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8141974.stm
a little more straight forward without an Op-ed piece. I guess what I was getting at, is they shouldn't have been released. Whether it was this president, or the last, I don't think its good for U.S. Security and we shouldn't be worried about appeasing Iran.
I find it interesting that you're saying the Quds are innocent and didn't provide support overtly or covertly to Shiites in Iran. I guess they were innocently in Iraq in the middle of a war. Its pretty well documented aside from being covert forces that they're open supporters of Shiite militias in Iraq.
-
yay +1 iranian terrorists, americans 0
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY0MjkwOWVkYTNlYzE2ZjM1N2E5M2M0MTdiYTI3MzM=
"Obama Frees Iranian Terror Masters
The release of the Irbil Five is a continuation of a shameful policy.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
July 11, 2009 7:00 AM
There are a few things you need to know about President Obama’s shameful release on Thursday of the “Irbil Five” — Quds Force commanders from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) who were coordinating terrorist attacks in Iraq that have killed hundreds — yes, hundreds — of American soldiers and Marines.
First, of the 4,322 Americans killed in combat in Iraq since 2003, 10 percent of them (i.e., more than 400) have been murdered by a single type of weapon alone, a weapon that is supplied by Iran for the singular purpose of murdering Americans. As Steve Schippert explains at NRO’s military blog, the Tank, the weapon is “the EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator), designed by Iran’s IRGC specifically to penetrate the armor of the M1 Abrams main battle tank and, consequently, everything else deployed in the field.” Understand: This does not mean Iran has killed only 400 Americans in Iraq. The number killed and wounded at the mullahs’ direction is far higher than that — likely multiples of that — when factoring in the IRGC’s other tactics, such as the mustering of Hezbollah-style Shiite terror cells.
Second, President Bush and our armed forces steadfastly refused demands by Iran and Iraq’s Maliki government for the release of the Irbil Five because Iran was continuing to coordinate terrorist operations against American forces in Iraq (and to aid Taliban operations against American forces in Afghanistan). Freeing the Quds operatives obviously would return the most effective, dedicated terrorist trainers to their grisly business.
Third, Obama’s decision to release the five terror-masters comes while the Iranian regime (a) is still conducting operations against Americans in Iraq, even as we are in the process of withdrawing, and (b) is clearly working to replicate its Lebanon model in Iraq: establishing a Shiite terror network, loyal to Iran, as added pressure on the pliant Maliki to understand who is boss once the Americans leave. As the New York Times reports, Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, put it this way less than two weeks ago:
Iran is still supporting, funding, training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq — flat out. . . . They have not stopped. And I don’t think they will stop. I think they will continue to do that because they are also concerned, in my opinion, [about] where Iraq is headed. They want to try to gain influence here, and they will continue to do that. I think many of the attacks in Baghdad are from individuals that have been, in fact, funded or trained by the Iranians.
Fourth, President Obama’s release of the Quds terrorists is a natural continuation of his administration’s stunningly irresponsible policy of bartering terrorist prisoners for hostages. As I detailed here on June 24, Obama has already released a leader of the Iran-backed Asaib al-Haq terror network in Iraq, a jihadist who is among those responsible for the 2007 murders of five American troops in Karbala. While the release was ludicrously portrayed as an effort to further “Iraqi reconciliation” (as if that would be a valid reason to spring a terrorist who had killed Americans), it was in actuality a naïve attempt to secure the reciprocal release of five British hostages — and a predictably disastrous one: The terror network released only the corpses of two of the hostages, threatening to kill the remaining three (and who knows whether they still are alive?) unless other terror leaders were released.
Michael Ledeen has reported that the release of the Irbil Five is part of the price Iran has demanded for its release in May of the freelance journalist Roxana Saberi. Again, that’s only part of the price: Iran also has demanded the release of hundreds of its other terror facilitators in our custody. Expect to see Obama accommodate this demand, too, in the weeks ahead.
Finally, when it comes to Iran, it has become increasingly apparent that President Obama wants the mullahs to win. What you need to know is that Barack Obama is a wolf in “pragmatist” clothing: Beneath the easy smile and above-it-all manner — the “neutral” doing his best to weigh competing claims — is a radical leftist wedded to a Manichean vision that depicts American imperialism as the primary evil in the world.
You may not have wanted to addle your brain over his tutelage in Hawaii by the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, nor his tracing of Davis’s career steps to Chicago, where he seamlessly eased into the orbit of Arafat apologist Rashid Khalidi, anti-American terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and Maoist “educator” Michael Klonsky — all while imbibing 20 years’ worth of Jeremiah Wright’s Marxist “black liberation theology.” But this neo-Communist well from which Obama drew holds that the world order is a maze of injustice, racism, and repression. Its unified theory for navigating the maze is: “United States = culprit.” Its default position is that tyrants are preferable as long as they are anti-American, and that while terrorist methods may be regrettable, their root cause is always American provocation — that is, the terrorists have a point.
In Iran, it is no longer enough for a rickety regime, whose anti-American vitriol is its only vital sign, to rig the “democratic” process. This time, blatant electoral fraud was also required to mulct victory for the mullahs’ candidate. The chicanery ignited a popular revolt. But the brutal regime guessed right: The new American president would be supportive. So sympathetic is Obama to the mullahs’ grievances — so hostile to what he, like the regime, sees as America’s arrogant militarism — that he could be depended on to go as far as politics allowed to help the regime ride out the storm.
And so he has. Right now, politics will allow quite a lot: With unemployment creeping toward 10 percent, the auto industry nationalized, the stimulus revealed as history’s biggest redistribution racket (so far), and Democrats bent on heaping ruinous carbon taxes and socialized medicine atop an economy already crushed by tens of trillions in unfunded welfare-state liabilities, Iran is barely on anyone’s radar screen.
So Obama is pouring it on while his trusty media idles. When they are not looking the other way from the carnage in Iran’s streets, they are dutifully reporting — as the AP did — that the Irbil Five are mere “diplomats.” Obama frees a terrorist with the blood of American troops on his hands, and the press yawns. Senators Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl press for answers about the release of the terrorist and Obama’s abandonment of a decades-old American policy against trading terrorists for hostages, and the silence is deafening.
Except in Tehran, where the mullahs are hearing exactly what they’ve banked on hearing.
— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008)."
-
don't drink and drive... you might spill your beer
-
-
+1 on joe's cycle, they are awesome people!
-
thank you. For stopping and checking that everything was okay when we were on the side of the road. The bike got running again so we needed no help, but it's the principle of your actions that count. Most people don't stop anymore, so thanks!
On ol' 63 huh? whatcha doing there, stoppin by Uncle Larry's?
-
Let get rid of all debt, all over the world. Start fresh. And make obama king of the world................................
I thought we already did that? at least the king part
check out this king of the world greeting in ghana!
http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoChannel=75&videoId=107767
Glenn Beck - Common Sense
in Dumpster
Posted · Edited by dmagicglock
^ lol
back to original thread topic, found this, his book is new york times best seller for 5 weeks at number 1 for paperback nonfiction
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/books/bestseller/bestpapernonfiction.html?_r=1&ref=bestseller
and here's some reviews from amazon.com for those interested in reading the book!
http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Becks-Common-Sense-Control/product-reviews/1439168571/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1