FlunkedAgain 3 days ago
This is what they said they wished to accomplish.
"""
We the people of the United States, in order to
#1 form a more perfect union,
#2 establish justice,
#3 insure domestic tranquility,
#4 provide for the common defense,
#5 promote the general welfare,
#6 secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
"""
We the people of the United States, in order to
#1 form a more perfect union,
#2 establish justice,
#3 insure domestic tranquility,
#4 provide for the common defense,
#5 promote the general welfare,
#6 secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
kingston 3 days ago
+3 Votes
A good weekend topic. Let me rewrite the aims for today, in your country and in mine.
(Preamble :) We the politicians of Australia and America, decree
(1) We aim to feather bed our electorates
(2) We aim to take from the people all the freedoms they now have
(3) We aim to rule because we know what the people need rather than what they want
(4) We aim to so corrupt the system we can ensure our re-election
(5) We aim to find rest and peace from our troubled conscience when we eventually leave the employ of government.
Cheers from Aussie
(Preamble :) We the politicians of Australia and America, decree
(1) We aim to feather bed our electorates
(2) We aim to take from the people all the freedoms they now have
(3) We aim to rule because we know what the people need rather than what they want
(4) We aim to so corrupt the system we can ensure our re-election
(5) We aim to find rest and peace from our troubled conscience when we eventually leave the employ of government.
Cheers from Aussie
ROJODEE 3 days ago
+7 Votes
FlunkedAgain 3 days ago
+1 Vote
Hate to get technical, but snakes don't have lips.
They would also have to be able to frown, to validate your assertion.
As for politicians, maybe they got a bootleg copy of the Herman Cain "Beamer" program.
They would also have to be able to frown, to validate your assertion.
As for politicians, maybe they got a bootleg copy of the Herman Cain "Beamer" program.
FlunkedAgain 3 days ago
+1 Vote
#1 form a more perfect union,
This one is hard to evaluate, since we don't know how good or bad government was under the Articles of Confederation.
If the Articles of Confederation didn't suck, we wouldn't have the Constitution we have now.
This one is hard to evaluate, since we don't know how good or bad government was under the Articles of Confederation.
If the Articles of Confederation didn't suck, we wouldn't have the Constitution we have now.
Nohelp1 3 days ago
+2 Votes
I just prefer to have my money back by the full productive capablitity of the US than a piece of shiny metal. But isn't all money in essence backed by wealth? The wealth that is being exchanged in a transaction seems to be what backs any money used as a medium of exchange.
FlunkedAgain 3 days ago
+1 Vote
#2 establish justice,
I think we're making progress here.
Abolished slavery, gave women the right to vote, extended citizenship to the Native Americans.
BUT we also broke treaties and promises to Native Americans.
Unfortunately Politicians have turned the Vote into a game which deprives us all of a truly representative Republic.
We have a 2 party system because of the way Congress is elected. With the Congressional District method, it hard for 3rd or minority party candidates to get elected. There may be enough Libertarians in a state to give them a 20% share of the Congressional Delegation, but District Lines may totally eliminate them from contention.
I think we're making progress here.
Abolished slavery, gave women the right to vote, extended citizenship to the Native Americans.
BUT we also broke treaties and promises to Native Americans.
Unfortunately Politicians have turned the Vote into a game which deprives us all of a truly representative Republic.
We have a 2 party system because of the way Congress is elected. With the Congressional District method, it hard for 3rd or minority party candidates to get elected. There may be enough Libertarians in a state to give them a 20% share of the Congressional Delegation, but District Lines may totally eliminate them from contention.
nativespirit 3 days ago
+6 Votes
Yes, extended citizenship to the Native Americans, and invited them to become this country's first welfare culture. Wow, look where that got them. (my mother's people don't have a rez. So I have no idea what that would be like. I am just glad I didn't have to overcome that social mentality of victimhood) Just sayin'
FlunkedAgain 3 days ago
+1 Vote
Relax, the victim-hood is now being passed along to Casino losers.
However; the issue of racial discrimination is a blight on our history.
BTW: The injustice of the Reservations occurred long before citizenship was granted. You do know that members of some Native American tribes had African American slaves?
However; the issue of racial discrimination is a blight on our history.
BTW: The injustice of the Reservations occurred long before citizenship was granted. You do know that members of some Native American tribes had African American slaves?
Nohelp1 2 days ago
+1 Vote
Native Americans should follow the example of the Jewish people and petition the UN for their own country. The exact same arguments used by the Jewish people applies to Native Americans. Maybe start the new country up in Canada, come through the USA mid section, and then ending in Northern Mexico.
Bellum 3 days ago
+2 Votes
FlunkedAgain -
Good topics for discusiion - true.
But, you must admit each is ambiguous, without standard, and subject to endless debate.
Cheers,
Good topics for discusiion - true.
But, you must admit each is ambiguous, without standard, and subject to endless debate.
Cheers,
kingston 3 days ago
+3 Votes
Bellum.
Your post is self defeating! A good topic for discussion you say then you criticise the content as being subject to endless debate. Sounds like a parliamentary exposition in question time in the House of Commons at Westminster.
Cheers from Aussie
Your post is self defeating! A good topic for discussion you say then you criticise the content as being subject to endless debate. Sounds like a parliamentary exposition in question time in the House of Commons at Westminster.
Cheers from Aussie
Bellum 3 days ago
+1 Vote
kingston -
Not self-defeating by any measure. An accurate, I offer, assessment of the opportunity.
Cheers,
Not self-defeating by any measure. An accurate, I offer, assessment of the opportunity.
Cheers,
FlunkedAgain 3 days ago
+2 Votes
Well Bellum,
It's the Memorial Day weekend when we (supposedly) honor those who have given their lives for our country.
The Oath you take when you become a member of the armed forces, is an oath to Defend the Constitution. So, I think that asking "how are we doing" is appropriate.
Moving toward fulfilling the promise of the Constitution would be a nice way of honoring their sacrifice.
It's the Memorial Day weekend when we (supposedly) honor those who have given their lives for our country.
The Oath you take when you become a member of the armed forces, is an oath to Defend the Constitution. So, I think that asking "how are we doing" is appropriate.
Moving toward fulfilling the promise of the Constitution would be a nice way of honoring their sacrifice.
Bellum 3 days ago
+3 Votes
FlunkedAgain -
USA hasn't defended its Consitution since 1945, as there hasn't been a military threat to it since that time.
How are you doing - not so well.
Cheers,
USA hasn't defended its Consitution since 1945, as there hasn't been a military threat to it since that time.
How are you doing - not so well.
Cheers,
RicFlair 3 days ago
+7 Votes
Bellum baby, you of all personalities on this site should have the bandwidth to extend the meaning of defending the constitution beyond waging war. Leaving the brawling and picking fights to the champ pal!
Bellum 3 days ago
+4 Votes
RicFlair -
Thanks for the expression of respect.
I do not disagree there are several forms by which your Constitution may be 'defended'.
That said, the context, as defined, is one of miltary service, which begets military action.
Though a different topic, your use of military action since 1945 is a sad adventure, though your folks undertaking those adventures are remarkable.
Cheers,
Thanks for the expression of respect.
I do not disagree there are several forms by which your Constitution may be 'defended'.
That said, the context, as defined, is one of miltary service, which begets military action.
Though a different topic, your use of military action since 1945 is a sad adventure, though your folks undertaking those adventures are remarkable.
Cheers,
rick0427 2 days ago
+2 Votes
Yes it is Memorial Day the day we honor those Americans who died in battle. All of them. Started to honor those who fought and died in the civil war it includes by far the largest numbr. 625,000 Americans gave their lives in that war. But then we were fighting ourselves. But t Bellum I say this 521,000 Americans spilled their blood on the European continent, WW1 116,500, WW2 405,000. Yes those countries in Europe suffered much greater but we came to back you up in two wars that you could not have won alone. But because America defends true democracy whenever and wherever it is in peril we came and we helped you conquer aggression and tyranny that you may very well b living under today. A kiss a hug and a big thank you would be more appropriate this weekend then a diatribe on the whys and hows that we got there. From all Americans on this board Bellum I offer a big you are welcome. Honor our dead not belittle our methods your benefit of these deaths is even greater then ours. less
RicFlair 3 days ago
+5 Votes
Ambiguous, without standards, and subject to endless debate; a liberals dream come true bellum baby!
Bellum 3 days ago
+3 Votes
RicFlair -
You really ought to explore the meaning of 'liberal', as well as the counter-positions to 'liberal'.
Respectfully,
You really ought to explore the meaning of 'liberal', as well as the counter-positions to 'liberal'.
Respectfully,
stndyogrnd 3 days ago
+2 Votes
LOL that would require something approximating cognizant critical thinking skills, .... the self proclaimed "champ" has shown very little capability in that area.
FlunkedAgain 2 days ago
+1 Vote
Bellum said; "" USA hasn't defended its Consitution since 1945, as there hasn't been a military threat to it since that time.""
The only time the US has fought a war that was even remotely associated with the Constitution, was the Civil War.
The only time the US has fought a war that was even remotely associated with the Constitution, was the Civil War.
Bellum 2 days ago
FlunkedAgain -
There are perhaps several 'defend the Constitution' clauses. The one that matters most, I offer, is the one subscribed by those that actually engage in combat. The oath includes the reference to 'enemies foreign and domestic'. While your European war (principally against Germany) was largely a contrived affair, your Pacific war (against Japan) was not. Japan was an enemy of your State, where the conclusion your Constitution was at issue is not a leap in logic.
Cheers,
There are perhaps several 'defend the Constitution' clauses. The one that matters most, I offer, is the one subscribed by those that actually engage in combat. The oath includes the reference to 'enemies foreign and domestic'. While your European war (principally against Germany) was largely a contrived affair, your Pacific war (against Japan) was not. Japan was an enemy of your State, where the conclusion your Constitution was at issue is not a leap in logic.
Cheers,
TheScott 1 day ago
+1 Vote
"The only time the US has fought a war that was even remotely associated with the Constitution, was the Civil War."
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that a direct attack on a territory of the U.S. and on its military and citizens isn't a direct affront to the country and its people? Clearly the constitution defines in its preamble defence and secure liberty, both of which were harmed on Dec 7th 1941? No?
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that a direct attack on a territory of the U.S. and on its military and citizens isn't a direct affront to the country and its people? Clearly the constitution defines in its preamble defence and secure liberty, both of which were harmed on Dec 7th 1941? No?
FlunkedAgain 2 days ago
+1 Vote
Bellum,
After we declared War against Japan, Germany declared War on the US.
Dec 11, 1941:
Germany declares war on the United States
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states
On this day, Adolf Hitler declares war on the United States, bringing America, which had been neutral, into the European conflict.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor surprised even Germany. Although Hitler had made an oral agreement with his Axis partner Japan that Germany would join a war against the United States, he was uncertain as to how the war would be engaged.
After we declared War against Japan, Germany declared War on the US.
Dec 11, 1941:
Germany declares war on the United States
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states
On this day, Adolf Hitler declares war on the United States, bringing America, which had been neutral, into the European conflict.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor surprised even Germany. Although Hitler had made an oral agreement with his Axis partner Japan that Germany would join a war against the United States, he was uncertain as to how the war would be engaged.
Bellum 2 days ago
+2 Votes
FlunkedAgain -
A declaration of war is a diplomatic, academic, intellectual exercise, and the reasons therefore are of no import, unless you're into diplomacy, academia, or history.
Real men, real battle, against those that would do you and yours real harm is war, declared or not. 1940's Japan would have done you real harm.
Cheers,
A declaration of war is a diplomatic, academic, intellectual exercise, and the reasons therefore are of no import, unless you're into diplomacy, academia, or history.
Real men, real battle, against those that would do you and yours real harm is war, declared or not. 1940's Japan would have done you real harm.
Cheers,
TheScott 1 day ago
+1 Vote
Quoting from a MarketTicker blog: History is written by victors, not the vanquished, but anyone who doubts that the British in 1776, the Germans in 1914 or 1939, the Japanese in 1941 or others did not intend and initiate violence against America and her people has their head on sideways.
FlunkedAgain 2 days ago
+1 Vote
Bellum,
http://www.pchelpforum.com/xf/threads/the-luftwaffes-attempt-to-bomb-new-york-city.133647/
The story of the mysterious flight had its origins in the spring of 1942 when the then all powerful Luftwaffe requested German aircraft manufactures design prints for a long range, heavy bomber capable of reaching the US mainland from Fortress Europe.
http://www.pchelpforum.com/xf/threads/the-luftwaffes-attempt-to-bomb-new-york-city.133647/
The story of the mysterious flight had its origins in the spring of 1942 when the then all powerful Luftwaffe requested German aircraft manufactures design prints for a long range, heavy bomber capable of reaching the US mainland from Fortress Europe.
Bellum 2 days ago
+1 Vote
FlunkedAgain -
Hopes, dreams, and ambitions don't make for ability.
While Germany's hopes, dreams, and ambitions may have matured into ability, assuming the Luftwaffe is a measure of Germany's strategic objectives, USA's participation in the war vs. Germany, and the declaration of war of Germany, was a politically motivated and contrived event. That USA's action may be seen as prescient does not change that fact.
Cheers,
Hopes, dreams, and ambitions don't make for ability.
While Germany's hopes, dreams, and ambitions may have matured into ability, assuming the Luftwaffe is a measure of Germany's strategic objectives, USA's participation in the war vs. Germany, and the declaration of war of Germany, was a politically motivated and contrived event. That USA's action may be seen as prescient does not change that fact.
Cheers,
kingston 3 days ago
+1 Vote
Bellum.
Not sure where you come from and it is not important providing it is not Australia!
Now US has always defended its constitution in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine which was born in a speech by the President to Congress in 1823. This set the tone for US foreign Policy up to and including the "Cold War" post WW2. Defending the constitution involves more than fighting at home, it includes the quelling of spot fires abroad where the nation is threatened.
Cheers from Aussie
Not sure where you come from and it is not important providing it is not Australia!
Now US has always defended its constitution in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine which was born in a speech by the President to Congress in 1823. This set the tone for US foreign Policy up to and including the "Cold War" post WW2. Defending the constitution involves more than fighting at home, it includes the quelling of spot fires abroad where the nation is threatened.
Cheers from Aussie
Bellum 3 days ago
+1 Vote
kingston -
So is America's embrace of its 'manifest destiny' doctrines.
Use of such doctrines as a justification for action, especially, miltary action, is akin to a variant of the 'Nuremberg defense'.
A review of the law of war might be in order.
Cheers,
So is America's embrace of its 'manifest destiny' doctrines.
Use of such doctrines as a justification for action, especially, miltary action, is akin to a variant of the 'Nuremberg defense'.
A review of the law of war might be in order.
Cheers,
kingston 3 days ago
+3 Votes
But Bellum, US has not expanded in territorial terms to the extent of Britain and the other European territorial expansionist countries. The Monroe doctrine needs no explanation here, it is so well known. The Roosevelt Corollary pushed its meaning to emphasise the need for off shore defence of the US. The resultant events have proved the wisdom of the idea. I think that, unless we are ultra left wing adherents of Lenin and Stalinist philosophy, we have much to be grateful for.
Cheers from Aussie
Cheers from Aussie
Bellum 3 days ago
+1 Vote
kingston -
The context is defending the Consitution, not defending America's corporate enterprises, exporting America's stand on human rights, America's role as peace keeper/peace maker, etc., etc.
Cheers,
The context is defending the Consitution, not defending America's corporate enterprises, exporting America's stand on human rights, America's role as peace keeper/peace maker, etc., etc.
Cheers,
FlunkedAgain 3 days ago
+1 Vote
kingston,
The Monroe Doctrine is pretty much dead. Those we were "protecting" have told us No Thank You.
South and Central America have had more to fear from the US, than them evil Europeans.
The Monroe Doctrine is pretty much dead. Those we were "protecting" have told us No Thank You.
South and Central America have had more to fear from the US, than them evil Europeans.
kingston 3 days ago
+2 Votes
Flunked./
I agree; Monroe Doctrine is about finished. I have indicated so in linking it to the Cold War and Vietnam. I certainly do not think foreign policy had remained static during the past two decades. The overriding policy recently appears to have been rather obscure reasoning which resembles the death throes of a once mighty nation looking for a reason to remain great. The commercial interest in oil from the Middle East and the proposed Northern Pipe line gives us an indication. The Afghanistan involvement was of course a necessary and predictable reaction to the first attack on your soil since about 1802.
I agree; Monroe Doctrine is about finished. I have indicated so in linking it to the Cold War and Vietnam. I certainly do not think foreign policy had remained static during the past two decades. The overriding policy recently appears to have been rather obscure reasoning which resembles the death throes of a once mighty nation looking for a reason to remain great. The commercial interest in oil from the Middle East and the proposed Northern Pipe line gives us an indication. The Afghanistan involvement was of course a necessary and predictable reaction to the first attack on your soil since about 1802.
FlunkedAgain 2 days ago
+1 Vote
kingston said;
""
The Afghanistan involvement was of course a necessary and predictable reaction to the first attack on your soil since about 1802.
""
Actually, it wasn't. Bush issued a deadline for Afghanistan to turn Osama over to the US. When the deadline passed, WE started the War.
There were a variety of factors in play at the time, but Bush wanted immediate capitulation by the Afghans (Taliban).
This war had more to do with Bush wanting to appear to be Tough, than it had to do with getting our hands on Osama.
""
The Afghanistan involvement was of course a necessary and predictable reaction to the first attack on your soil since about 1802.
""
Actually, it wasn't. Bush issued a deadline for Afghanistan to turn Osama over to the US. When the deadline passed, WE started the War.
There were a variety of factors in play at the time, but Bush wanted immediate capitulation by the Afghans (Taliban).
This war had more to do with Bush wanting to appear to be Tough, than it had to do with getting our hands on Osama.
louman 2 days ago
+2 Votes
Will you feel the same way when O goes to war with Iran???
Or is it just a thing to bash repub's?
Or is it just a thing to bash repub's?
kingston 2 days ago
+4 Votes
Flunked and Lou.
Perhaps we should not try to lay blame or give credit to either side for the Afghan conflict.\The American people, together with friends of America were sufficiently outraged by 9/11 they would have gone to war with or without the Government.
There was great outrage in Australia concerning our involvement in the Iraq conflict. Many saw the war as a push for US to control the oil. I heard no one complain about our involvement in Afghanistan other then the Greens who oppose everything for the sake of opposition.
Cheers from Aussie
Perhaps we should not try to lay blame or give credit to either side for the Afghan conflict.\The American people, together with friends of America were sufficiently outraged by 9/11 they would have gone to war with or without the Government.
There was great outrage in Australia concerning our involvement in the Iraq conflict. Many saw the war as a push for US to control the oil. I heard no one complain about our involvement in Afghanistan other then the Greens who oppose everything for the sake of opposition.
Cheers from Aussie
TheScott 1 day ago
So your contention is that if a stranger to your neighbourhood attacks your family in your home and then runs next door for refuge, you 1) don't have the right to see that person arrested out of that home and 2) have no expectation that the neighbour has an obligation to offer the stranger up for arrest? If the neighbour is harboring the stranger under duress, that is one thing.... anything else is complicity...
While I think that the whole 'war on terror' thing is a ruse going forward, going after a nationless attacker is somewhat tricky....
While I think that the whole 'war on terror' thing is a ruse going forward, going after a nationless attacker is somewhat tricky....
CrazyMarine 3 days ago
+2 Votes
The founding fathers would be livid if they discovered how we have allowed their ideas of freedom of the press slip through our grasp and allowed "the media monopoly" to move further away from the needs of the individual and closer to those of big business.
Bellum 3 days ago
+2 Votes
CrazyMarine -
Your 'founding fathers' are dead.
Your press is as free today, vis-a-vis government regulation, as it ever was (save for the prudeness of present day America).
Cheers,
Your 'founding fathers' are dead.
Your press is as free today, vis-a-vis government regulation, as it ever was (save for the prudeness of present day America).
Cheers,
CrazyMarine 3 days ago
+1 Vote
It,s not government regulation that,s the problem, it,s the control of editorial content by special interest groups, the corporations and the wealthy that has destroyed a critical element of democracy, a free and unfettered press, both electronic and print are compromised to the point that only opinions that match corporate goals are voiced.
FlunkedAgain 3 days ago
Bellum,
It's funny that I can do to sites affiliated with churches and see comments that would be @#$%&! over here at MW.
It's funny that I can do to sites affiliated with churches and see comments that would be @#$%&! over here at MW.
TheScott 1 day ago
+2 Votes
Let one reporter in the Whitehouse press corp as a hard question and see just how much access they have to the press room again..... It has happened before and I would suggest that it is even tougher now to keep your chair.....
Bellum 2 days ago
+1 Vote
CrazyMarine -
Your 'founding fathers' and 'freedom of press' references set the context as a Constitutional context. Your now 'the control of editorial content by special interest groups, the corporations and the wealthy ' observation is a Constitutional non-event.
Cheers,
Your 'founding fathers' and 'freedom of press' references set the context as a Constitutional context. Your now 'the control of editorial content by special interest groups, the corporations and the wealthy ' observation is a Constitutional non-event.
Cheers,
FlunkedAgain 3 days ago
+1 Vote
#4 provide for the common defense,
We're not doing well at all on this one.
We spend massive amounts on weapons systems, and then when we go to war we hear "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." W Tee F?
I think the Founding Fathers would be greatly disappointed with us.
We're not doing well at all on this one.
We spend massive amounts on weapons systems, and then when we go to war we hear "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." W Tee F?
I think the Founding Fathers would be greatly disappointed with us.
TheScott 1 day ago
+1 Vote
I would stay that if occupation, theft of goods and services and violation of our laws are any indication, the Federal Government has allowed a full on invasion of our southern border...
InnzandOutz 3 days ago
+4 Votes
All past presidents would be embarrassed and ashamed of the buffoonery that has plagued us since 2008.
stndyogrnd 2 days ago
+5 Votes
LOL the buffoonery that has plagued us since 2008 is the constant attempt by right wing tools to blame everything on Obama that is the result of decades of Republican led ignorance, corruption, and cynicism that has not changed one tiny bit. That same Republican party that has not faced its own dysfunctional behavior and that brought us George Bush and is trying to bring his clone Mitt Romney to the office.
stndyogrnd 2 days ago
+1 Vote
People with shallow intellect routinely fail to be able to differentiate between the effect of the universally corrupt system campaign finance and lobbying and the people who operate in it.
To claim that Obama is a clone of GW pretty much reveals the simplistic shallow nature of their discernment process. Of course these sorts follow a simplistic shallow ideology that involves hating "Government" in general, and simplistic hatred is fed by a narcissistic adolescent problem with having to "pay taxes". These simplistic shallow thinkers have no clue about how their lifestyle they enjoy directly relates to social structure and infrastructure, that is the product of billions of people that came before them. Instead they in their arrogant fantaasy view themselves as the "creator" of the world around them. It is this combination of arrogance and willful ignorance that given them their shallow world view less
To claim that Obama is a clone of GW pretty much reveals the simplistic shallow nature of their discernment process. Of course these sorts follow a simplistic shallow ideology that involves hating "Government" in general, and simplistic hatred is fed by a narcissistic adolescent problem with having to "pay taxes". These simplistic shallow thinkers have no clue about how their lifestyle they enjoy directly relates to social structure and infrastructure, that is the product of billions of people that came before them. Instead they in their arrogant fantaasy view themselves as the "creator" of the world around them. It is this combination of arrogance and willful ignorance that given them their shallow world view less
FlunkedAgain 2 days ago
+1 Vote
#3 insure domestic tranquility,
This one is a toss-up. When times are good, we're tranquil, when they aren't we're more apt to over react to the slightest provocation.
This one is a toss-up. When times are good, we're tranquil, when they aren't we're more apt to over react to the slightest provocation.
stndyogrnd 2 days ago
+1 Vote
Not really a toss up since economic security social stability is what creates domestic tranquility. A thriving middle class, real competition, good water, clean air, healthy food, universal medical care, equal treatment under the law, social security, steady employment, regulation of the large economic concerns that have narrow selfish agendas that serve a relative few. All these things leads to "domestic tranquility" So one political ideology is built on trying to create, protect and improve this sort of environment, and the other is trying to destroy it and do the bidding of the wealthy elite and serve their agenda, though the universal system of corruption makes it hard to tell the difference much of the time.
FlunkedAgain 2 days ago
+2 Votes
Domestic Tranquility, and Promote the General Welfare are closely linked, and you would think that Promoting the General Welfare would lead to Domestic Tranquility, but Promoting the General Welfare seems to be affecting Domestic Tranquility in a negative way now. Seeing armed Jelly Belly TeaTards marching in Alaska is both amusing and alarming, I don't think those people are tranquil unless they're munching on a doughnut. They seem to have a munch or march manifesto.
Rumpled 1 day ago
Dunno about meeting the Goals set by the Founding Fathers -- but I don't think their Guarantees have been very well kept -- when's the last time you read the Bill of Rights?
FlunkedAgain 1 day ago
+2 Votes
Rumpled 1 day ago
Granted -- the first ten amendments weren't written yet when the Declaration of Independence was drafted.
Think Preamble . . . Preamble to what . . . the first 10 amendments to what . . . then compare to the topic.
Think Preamble . . . Preamble to what . . . the first 10 amendments to what . . . then compare to the topic.
FlunkedAgain 1 day ago
Rumpled,
What does the Bill of Rights have to do with the Declaration of Independence?
Considering the Founding Fathers' stated goals, is there anything in the Bill of Rights that expands them?
What does the Bill of Rights have to do with the Declaration of Independence?
Considering the Founding Fathers' stated goals, is there anything in the Bill of Rights that expands them?
Nohelp1 1 day ago
+2 Votes
"Why We Need To Replace Much of Congress Dept: Rep. Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania Republican up for re-election who has served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote a constituent a letter suggesting that peace in the Middle East depends on restarting negotiations between Yasir Arafat (who died in 2004) and Ariel Sharon (who has been in a coma since 2006) - or, as one observer noted, "between a vegetable and a dead man." A spokesman explained that responding to so many letters a year is "a complicated process." "With the global war against terrorism, it is now incumbent on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasir Arafat to clamp down on Palestinian extremists that have perpetuated violence and to restart a peace process that has collapsed." less
FlunkedAgain 1 day ago
Hold on there. I'm sure Sarah Palin can get her rewrite wiki history team on it ASAP.
Maybe we can get Paul Revere to ride over there and warn them.
Maybe we can get Paul Revere to ride over there and warn them.
No comments:
Post a Comment