News:

"Forbidden Fruit [L-H]"
Congratulations Mellific & Swashbuckler for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Tonight's Presidential Speech

Started by National Acrobat, May 15, 2006, 07:34:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

National Acrobat

Anyone here think it will have any substance? Anything new to tell us? Polls show that he is way off base with the average American concerning what they want done about immigration, and that the conservative base is starting to abandon him. Do you think that he will reverse some of his course, or attempt to persuade Americans that what he wants is 'right?'


RogueJedi

From what I have heard in Sen. Allen's office, he might have to advocate a more hands-on approach to illegal immigration.  Such as putting some show of military force on the borders.  That is what I have heard.  It might not be the case, but I am in support of, at the very least, that.

National Acrobat

I know that there has been talk of using the National Guard, but Senator Hagel mentioned this morning that was a good idea, but they were stretched too thin.

President Fox of Mexico is urging, of course, that there not be any military on the border.

I think the President is going to have to resign himself to the fact that his views on immigration are way out of touch with the American citizens, and that he's going to have to come to terms with the bill passed by the House of Representatives.

I hope that is some of what he says tonight.

RogueJedi

Which bill?  The one that Cantor helped craft and support?

I mean I am very much anti-ILLEGAL immigration.  I do support legal immigration though.

GoldenChild

Don't bet on it. I expect that he will keep on his already set path, he has nothing to loose to do so.

National Acrobat

Yeah, the one that makes it a Felony to be in the country illegally, and would authorize localities to arrest and deport folks. It's the one that is basically the opposite of the one the Senate wishes to pass.

I know that there are going to be terse negotiations between the House and Senate on that. The bill should be interesting in the final form.

I am totally pro-legal immigration as well. I think what bothers me the most about the illegal immigration issue is that the politicians treat it like a game, but you know when the average citizen breaks a law, we get the book thrown at us, but here the President is basically trying to reward illegal behavior.

A good friend of mine is hispanic, second generation with her parents having migrated from Mexico and Cuba respectively, and both of them support the House Bill, because they think everyone should have to go through what they did to enter this country legally. Her father enlisted in the US army actually, which helped him gain his citizenship, and he served the nation in return.

RogueJedi

I have many friends that are the same way Rat Salad.  Not only hispanics from Mexico and such, but one of my good friends is from Romania originally.  He had to go through alot to finally get his citizenship.  He is probably one of the most vocal anti-illegal immigration people I know.

What ticks me off, is the politicians sitting there and trying to give ILLEGALS in-state tuition to colleges and such.  What don't they understand about the word illegal?  I mean, I moved to Virginia in my senior year of high school, and I couldn't even get in-state tuition at least for my first year of college.  So, I have problems with such idiotic ideas from our elected officials.

And yes, I am a major supporter of the House bill.  I think George Allen is, but John Warner isn't.  He says it is foolish and unneeded or some such.

National Acrobat

I think Warner is trying to be moderate, which could backfire for him here in Virginia. He's trying to appear to not really take sides on the issue, which might not be a good path to take here in the Old Dominion. Then again, the older Warner gets, the more middle-of-the-road he gets. I'm not entirely sure that he fully supports all aspects of the Senate Bill, but I do know that he feels the House Bill is draconian.

Max

Something I heard that was interesting was that if you were an illegal immigrant in Mexico, that is a crime punishable by two years in prison.  Not sure if it is true or not.  Or whether or not Mexice is trying to keep illegals comming from south of Mexico from crossing into Mexico.  But they do seem so unable to keep people from leaving Mexico and entering the US.  

I do agree, that we must secure the border.  But, what does the House bill say about businesses hiring illlegals/  Or how people will be able to prove that are are legal?  How about the Senate bill?

Newt Gingrich had an idea, a biometric card issued by credit card compnaies.  Think I support that.
"Are you into whips and chains too?"
"No, chainsaws."  (just kidding)

Ons and offs:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=4738.new#new

Lilac

Quote from: Rat Salad on May 15, 2006, 07:47:53 AM
I know that there has been talk of using the National Guard, but Senator Hagel mentioned this morning that was a good idea, but they were stretched too thin.

President Fox of Mexico is urging, of course, that there not be any military on the border.

There have been incidents of raids from Mexico into the US by people in military garb and gear.  He should be happy that this is understood to be criminal activity and not an act of war.

In any case, about two-thirds of the American population is in favor of the forcible removal of illegal immigrants from US soil.

Legal immigration is, of course, another story.  But then we need to ask why do families from the Phillipines have to wait twenty years when so many from Mexico refuse to even naturalize with our society?

National Acrobat

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/SENSEN_104_XML.pdf

That's the text of the HR Bill. All 169 Pages of it. Biometrics is mentioned, as is a verification system that employers could call. I do believe that they are going to be tougher on employers, which in all honesty would help quite a bit.

The Southern Mexican Border with the rest of Central America is heavily patrolled by the Mexican Armed forces. They don't want anyone coming in. However, they don't show the same zeal with their northern border...

Lilac wrote:
QuoteBut then we need to ask why do families from the Phillipines have to wait twenty years when so many from Mexico refuse to even naturalize with our society?

I honestly think it's a total difference in mindset. I don't honestly think a lot of those coming from Mexico want to be US Citizens. I think they just want to work here. Their loyalty is probably still to Mexico, and if you asked the President, he'd probably use that as part of the justification for the Guest Worker Program.


Zakharra

 RogueJedi, the politicians see 'illegal alien' and think, 'Voter!' A good example of that thinking is shown in the various voter registration in itiatives that are being talked about in some states. Alot of people want to have voter ID cards and some kind of state registration/citizenship requirement that is hard to counterfit, yet there are groups like the ACLU and some politicians(mostly Democrat...) that are trying to block this. Saying that it is discrimination to have that. The fact is that they want it to be easy to enroll illegals and get them voting when they do not have the right.

Right now in New York, there are groups that are trying to give the right to vote to non-citizens for local/city elections, but the organizers of that groups have said that they want to eventually give the right to vote to non-citizens, from local all the way up to the Federal leve. President and Congress.

Max

I think there is a fear that placing US troops on the border would antoginze Mexicans, maybe throw the elections there to the socialist who is running for President, and he may throw his lot in with the likes of Venezula's Hugo Chavez.
"Are you into whips and chains too?"
"No, chainsaws."  (just kidding)

Ons and offs:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=4738.new#new

Zakharra

Quote from: Max on May 15, 2006, 08:33:32 AM
I think there is a fear that placing US troops on the border would antoginze Mexicans, maybe throw the elections there to the socialist who is running for President, and he may throw his lot in with the likes of Venezula's Hugo Chavez.

Fuck Mexico then. They have no right to bitch at the US enforicng it's laws. The Mexican government can go and screw donkeys for all I care. We have the right, as a sovereign nation to defend our borders. The same as Mexico does. Fox is being very hypocritical in his words.

RogueJedi

Zakharra, you are of course right.  I mean in Florida, the "Anyone but Bush" crowd tried to allow convicted felons to vote.  So, it is something that is expected.

As for the placement of troops, the Mexicans are also saying that if US citizens watch the border, they might have to use their military to assist the illegals to enter the country.  I don't care who you are, but if you try to interfere with the sovereignty of the US, then you are asking for war.  That is the main casus belli the world over.

Zakharra

 They said that they would actively help the illegals cross the border? If they try that, they are asking to loose the rest of their nation. If a single Mexican Federali steps foot across the border, war can be declared. A war that most of the country I think, would support. The illegal alien issue is pissing ALOT of people off...

GoldenChild

I don't think it is the issue of protecting the border that is the problem; it is how you do it. You don't send military against civilians that try to cross a border, that is the police's job.

RogueJedi

The problem is, if I recall correctly, INS and Border Patrol agents have been shot at by individuals wearing Mexican military uniforms when they were trying to capture illegals.  So, it is not only a police thing.  And to be honest, in Arizona, I know several sheriff's officces have asked permission to just shoot the illegals that come over the border.  I know of two instances from personal friends where a group of illegals raped a teenage girl in Arizona after crossing the border.

That is why the Minutemen are so popular in Arizona and Texas at least.

National Acrobat

QuoteI don't think it is the issue of protecting the border that is the problem; it is how you do it. You don't send military against civilians that try to cross a border, that is the police's job.

Perhaps, but then Fox would be caught being a hypocrite if he asks Bush not to do so, as he is doing it on his southern border.

I believe the National Guard is a temporary solution until they can get the recently approved doubling of the Border Patrol from 12,000 to 24,000 trained and on the border. From what I understand, the National Guard will be taking orders from the Border Patrol, so it would be the BP shooting, not the NG.

Also, California is creating a new Border Patrol Unit as part of the State Police, but Ahnold wants the Feds to pay for it.

Zakharra

Quote from: GoldenChild on May 15, 2006, 08:41:32 AM
I don't think it is the issue of protecting the border that is the problem; it is how you do it. You don't send military against civilians that try to cross a border, that is the police's job.

Actualy, you can. The military gives an aoth, when they join to protect the nation against all invaders. Foreign and domestic. Border protection is an acceptable funstion of the US military. An invade r is an invader. There is no distinction between civilian and military in that.

National Acrobat

You would think President Fox would be trying to eradicate people impersonating Mexican Soldiers entering the US before that really gets him and Mexico in a really bad situation. That has the potential to do some serious harm to this issue as well.

RogueJedi

Yeah, well, if anyone even wearing the uniform of the Mexican military comes over the border, I'd say that enough is enough.  I don't like them helping the illegals, and I certainly wouldn't stand for them trying to prevent us from doing our jobs for security.

Max

I am not saying that the US shouldn't secure the border.  We should.  I am not sure if using the military is the best long term solution.  I do support the wall.  Did like the Minute Men idea of building one on private property if the government doesn't act.

Now, I have no problems with the Mexican army making sure the immigrants are safe on THEIR side of the border.  But, the Mexican army has no right being north of said border.  

About the point of the Mexican elections.  If Mexico does go left, and joins up with Chavez, what do you think will happen to gas prices?  I do believe we import a lot of oil from there.  I think Bush would like to wait until the elections are over before acting.  Doubt he will have the time to though.  Think he, and the government, needs to act now.

As fora war against Mexico, once we win it, what do we do with it?

Another thing I would like to see is a big energy program.  Using alternate sources of energy.  Maybe OTC (Ocean Thermal Current).  Maybe nuclear.  Solar, wind power.
"Are you into whips and chains too?"
"No, chainsaws."  (just kidding)

Ons and offs:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=4738.new#new

GoldenChild

Quote from: Zakharra on May 15, 2006, 08:47:04 AM
Actualy, you can. The military gives an aoth, when they join to protect the nation against all invaders. Foreign and domestic. Border protection is an acceptable funstion of the US military. An invade r is an invader. There is no distinction between civilian and military in that.

To me that is an enormous difference; as those people in question can’t impossible threaten US in any way. Sure you can use the army against them temporarily but not as a permanent solution, mainly because it is a civilian problem, not a military one.

RogueJedi

I support nuclear energy.  However, the militant environmentalists will never allow that, or anything else.

The other issue with Mexican soldiers firing at BP agents is... they might be firing from their side of the border, but they are aiming at our side of it.

Zakharra

 Wind power can not give us enough for the needs of our nation. Solar can give some. Nuclear is the way to go, that and drilling for more oil in the Gulf and Alaska and California.

If Mexico tries to protect it's 'citizens' on the north of the border, they are asking for a world of hurt. As for the oil, we can take over the Mexican oil rigs in the Gulf easily enough and jump pump the oil for us instead.

Zakharra

 Maybe so GC, but it is still a legitimate use of the military to protect the border. They can threaten the US, by their presense and actions. There are 11+ million of them. That means they could do alot of nasty things. Besides, military on the border would cut down the drug smuggling alot.  ;)

RogueJedi

Not only that, but terrorists also know how porous the US-Mexican border is right now.  I would rather we have a military presence to stop them from getting in as well.  And if I hear another person singing the new national anthem in Spanish, I am going to scream!

National Acrobat

War with Mexico would never happen though. There might be an isolated incident or two on the border, but that's about it really.

My mom would love drilling in ANWAR, because as an Alaskan Citizen, that would increase her yearly checks from oil revenue.

Max

Quote from: Zakharra on May 15, 2006, 08:58:47 AM
Wind power can not give us enough for the needs of our nation. Solar can give some. Nuclear is the way to go, that and drilling for more oil in the Gulf and Alaska and California.

If Mexico tries to protect it's 'citizens' on the north of the border, they are asking for a world of hurt. As for the oil, we can take over the Mexican oil rigs in the Gulf easily enough and jump pump the oil for us instead.

AM not saying wind power will supply all our needs.  But, every little bit helps.  And I do support drilling in ANWAR, and the Gulf, and California, and everywhere else.  And using coal, if it could be used clean enough.

But, we need to start to get away from oil.  The sooner, the better. 
"Are you into whips and chains too?"
"No, chainsaws."  (just kidding)

Ons and offs:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=4738.new#new

RogueJedi

I agree Max.  The main reason I support nuclear power is because it is clean, and most informed people support building nuclear reactors, even in their areas.  I mean, nuclear power plants are not like what they show on the Simpsons for cryin' out loud.

National Acrobat

True, and if properly maintained and cared for, with up to date technology and procedures, nothing is safer than Nuclear Power.

Clean Coal is a good alternative as well. That would certainly help Virginia's economy.

GoldenChild

Quote from: Max on May 15, 2006, 09:14:55 AM
AM not saying wind power will supply all our needs.  But, every little bit helps.  And I do support drilling in ANWAR, and the Gulf, and California, and everywhere else.  And using coal, if it could be used clean enough.

But, we need to start to get away from oil.  The sooner, the better. 

The energy crisis is a problem on itself.

On one hand you have the oil which will not be around forever (not to mention that it messes up the world rather bad too, pollution and so on). Coal isn't much better in that regard.

On the other hand you got nuclear power, it works and it is clean, up to the day where you either have an accident and you spread radioactive radiation all over or until you have to decide where to put the radioactive waste for storage the next 250.000 years. Personally I prefer nuclear power as I happen to like our climate we have.

Max

Does anyone know anything about OTC (Ocean Thermal Current) technology.  Read about it the book "A Step Further Out," by JE Pournelle, but my copy fell apart years ago.  Something about drawing colder seawater water up thru a pipe, to turn a turbine to generate power.  Does anyone know if it has been tried on any scale.  Think I heard something on TV about it, but not sure if it was successful or not.  It might have been something else entirely.
"Are you into whips and chains too?"
"No, chainsaws."  (just kidding)

Ons and offs:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=4738.new#new

Moondazed

Quote from: RogueJedi on May 15, 2006, 08:58:06 AM
I support nuclear energy.  However, the militant environmentalists will never allow that, or anything else.

I don't consider myself a "militant environmentalist", but I do think that any form of energy should undergo a lifecycle analysis, and nuclear fails that miserably.  It's interesting to me that people don't pay more attention to using less energy, instead of only seeing one side of the coin and pushing generating more and more energy.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

National Acrobat

I think the only way the average person in an industrial nation will actually think about using less energy is if it starts to get either way expensive, or starts to really get scarce.

It usually takes that to break people of the habits they have. People love their cars, electronic gadgets and anything that makes life more comfortable, and a lot of those things take energy.

Virginia is set to enter Deregulation of the Electricity industry here in a couple of years. That could speed us right along that path...

Moondazed

Which is why I'm happy to see the price of gas go up.  I pay it right along with everyone else, and I do so happily and willingly.  I wish we were paying the real price, which would exceed $5 a gallon.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

GoldenChild

In Sweden the gas prise is about $6.50 per gallon already so I hope it won't rise any further.

Jefepato

If memory serves, money wired from the U.S. is currently the second largest "industry" (after oil, of course) in Mexico.

I'm starting to think war, or at least the threat of war (and the willingness to follow through), is the only answer.

National Acrobat

Well, I was a bit underwhelmed.

I wonder, when the president says they can go to the 'back of the line', does he mean the illegals can go home, and wait behind those who have filled out their paperwork and are waiting to see if they can get into the country, or do they go to the line inside the country.

Zakharra

Quote from: moondazed on May 15, 2006, 11:52:52 AM
I don't consider myself a "militant environmentalist", but I do think that any form of energy should undergo a lifecycle analysis, and nuclear fails that miserably.  It's interesting to me that people don't pay more attention to using less energy, instead of only seeing one side of the coin and pushing generating more and more energy.

Lifestyle analysis? We do not live in the 1800's, which is where we would be if we didn't have the power sources we have now. Everything we buy that makes our society is powered by oil or electricity. Nuclear is a cheap and good long term way of getting power. The spent fuel can be rendered solid, placed in heavily shielded storage places and in time, shot into the sun. France uses alot of nuclear power.

Quote from: moondazed on May 15, 2006, 03:29:06 PM
Which is why I'm happy to see the price of gas go up. I pay it right along with everyone else, and I do so happily and willingly. I wish we were paying the real price, which would exceed $5 a gallon.

Oli is the engine of the industrial world. It is used for gasoline, diesel, kerosine, plastics and many other uses. Unless there is another cheap source of enegy that is comparable to oil, then there will be no reason to go and look for another source. In Venezuala, the gas is $.27 cents per gallon. It's not much more expensive in Saudia Arabia. The price that is always quoted in the news is not the price the oil companies pay for it. The prices quoted are the futures market. Wether it's 1-8 months down the road, not the current prices.  I have heard economic analytsis say that the current price per gallon is not correct. That for it to be that price, the cost per barrel would have to be $90+. Not the $70ish it's been.

Zakharra

Quote from: Jefepato on May 15, 2006, 05:06:25 PM
If memory serves, money wired from the U.S. is currently the second largest "industry" (after oil, of course) in Mexico.

I'm starting to think war, or at least the threat of war (and the willingness to follow through), is the only answer.

You are correct. The money that is sent back to Mexico is the 2nd highest, after oil,  money making industry for the Mexican government.

Moondazed

Quote from: Zakharra on May 15, 2006, 09:28:26 PM
 
Lifestyle analysis? We do not live in the 1800's, which is where we would be if we didn't have the power sources we have now. Everything we buy that makes our society is powered by oil or electricity. Nuclear is a cheap and good long term way of getting power. The spent fuel can be rendered solid, placed in heavily shielded storage places and in time, shot into the sun. France uses alot of nuclear power.

Lifecycle analysis, as in assessing all of the consequences of the entire lifecycle of an energy source.  Nuclear is not the panacea some consider it to be if you consider that.  Obviously I understand that it isn't the 1800's, I'll assume that you don't mean to be condescending.

Shot into the sun?!  Why not spend some money finding a better way with less long term affects.

Quote from: Zakharra on May 15, 2006, 09:28:26 PM
Oli is the engine of the industrial world. It is used for gasoline, diesel, kerosine, plastics and many other uses. Unless there is another cheap source of enegy that is comparable to oil, then there will be no reason to go and look for another source. In Venezuala, the gas is $.27 cents per gallon. It's not much more expensive in Saudia Arabia. The price that is always quoted in the news is not the price the oil companies pay for it. The prices quoted are the futures market. Wether it's 1-8 months down the road, not the current prices.  I have heard economic analytsis say that the current price per gallon is not correct. That for it to be that price, the cost per barrel would have to be $90+. Not the $70ish it's been.

And yet it is exhaustible.  Plastic can be made from other sources, believe it or not.  Just because something is the status quo doesn't mean it's the way things have to stay.  Of course, it's easier to just keep buying gas hogs and not think about it, our generation won't have to deal with the fallout.  And the day I believe an economic analyst will be the day pigs fly :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Ajoxer

Actually, there's an incredibly large amount of empty, endless space out there. Once given a more effective way to leave the earth- One of the interesting ideas I've seen is a so-called " Space-Elevator"- The initial cost would be fairly high, but afterwards, it's like a regular elevator, you just use a counterbalance, say, a big iron-rich asteroid, bring that down, while the huge damn load of atomic waste is brought up, then use a mass driver to send it into the sun. As for illegal immigration, I've always been against it, but I think it would be hypocritical for anyone to be against legal immigration.

Oil is not going to last forever, and depressingly, most forms of " safe" energy, IE Wind, and Solar, are not nearly efficient enough yet to be able to power countries.

But then, we never know what the next new energy source might be...
I have a shock collar, designed for maximum Player/GM efficiency. If you see that I have not properly been fulfilling my duties in posting regularly, or a game being held back because I haven't posted, PM me and give me hell!

National Acrobat

QuoteAs for illegal immigration, I've always been against it, but I think it would be hypocritical for anyone to be against legal immigration.

I certainly agree with this, given as how the nation is built on the backs of immigrants originally. I don't know anyone who is against Legal immigration. I know plenty of folks who simply want the laws of the land on the books upheld, and several people who immigrated legally who want illegals to have to go through the process they did.

Zakharra

 
QuoteLifecycle

Oops, my bad. I misspelt it.  :-[  I'm not sure what you mean then about lifecycle. There is no resource that is limitless ornonbothersome in some way. Solar panels take up space, wind mills take up space and kill alot of birds. Coal and nat gas give off gases. Hydroelectric blocks waterways and nuclear has spent fuel. Everything has problems, but the problems are surmountable.

Nuclear is the best for us at this time, since it is easy and cheap.
QuoteShot into the sun?!  Why not spend some money finding a better way with less long term affects.
I'm not sure what's wrong with that? The sun is the perfect incinerator. It would burn the fuel rods into plasma and disperse it into the universe.

A space elevator would be the perfect way to go into space, but the means to build one is beyond our technological ability at this time, and is likely to stay that way. So it'll be rockets as the only way for us to get off of the planet.  Some things could be sent into space on a large massdriver(railgun), like foods, water and solid things that can take a shock. Soft and fragile things like humans will have to use rockets.   

Ajoxer is right, there is  boundless energy in space and a whole solar system's worth of resources to find and use.

Zakharra

 Yup. Illegal immigration ? Boo! Hiss!   Legal immigration? Yay! I have never had a problem with legal immigration. It's the illegal that annoys me.

Hunter

Quote from: Rat Salad on May 15, 2006, 07:34:58 AM
Anyone here think it will have any substance? Anything new to tell us? Polls show that he is way off base with the average American concerning what they want done about immigration, and that the conservative base is starting to abandon him. Do you think that he will reverse some of his course, or attempt to persuade Americans that what he wants is 'right?'

I've stopped paying much attention to what the politicians say.  They don't listen to the people they work for (the voters) and are going to do what they want anyways no matter what we think.

Moondazed

Quote from: Zakharra on May 16, 2006, 08:28:58 AM
  Oops, my bad. I misspelt it.  :-[  I'm not sure what you mean then about lifecycle. There is no resource that is limitless or non-bothersome in some way. Solar panels take up space, wind mills take up space and kill alot of birds. Coal and nat gas give off gases. Hydroelectric blocks waterways and nuclear has spent fuel. Everything has problems, but the problems are surmountable.

I'll take "takes up space" over "hangs around for hundreds of years" any day, thank you.  I guess "surmountable" is subjective, because I don't see nuclear waste as surmountable.

Quote from: Zakharra on May 16, 2006, 08:28:58 AM
Nuclear is the best for us at this time, since it is easy and cheap.   I'm not sure what's wrong with that? The sun is the perfect incinerator. It would burn the fuel rods into plasma and disperse it into the universe.

Why?  Easy and Cheap?  Sorry, I don't see something so potentially detrimental as easy or cheap.  What if we spent the time and energy exploring new energy sources?  As long as automakers keep a lot of the new technologies patented so that they can't be researched further we'll never know... unless we reward people who are thinking outside of the box.  Nuclear energy was discovered in a time when that type of thinking was rewarded and funded.

Quote from: Zakharra on May 16, 2006, 08:28:58 AM
A space elevator would be the perfect way to go into space, but the means to build one is beyond our technological ability at this time, and is likely to stay that way. So it'll be rockets as the only way for us to get off of the planet.  Some things could be sent into space on a large massdriver(railgun), like foods, water and solid things that can take a shock. Soft and fragile things like humans will have to use rockets.   

Ajoxer is right, there is  boundless energy in space and a whole solar system's worth of resources to find and use.

There are energy sources all around us, it's a matter of extracting the energy.  Such as ethanol... the only real discussion about actually pursuing it has been in reference to corn ethanol instead of sugarbeet ethanol, which is 4 times more efficient.  Why?  The corn lobbyists.  Man, our system is screwed up *sigh*
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Zakharra

Quote from: moondazed on May 16, 2006, 06:43:57 PM
I'll take "takes up space" over "hangs around for hundreds of years" any day, thank you.  I guess "surmountable" is subjective, because I don't see nuclear waste as surmountable.

The power produced is cheap and easy to make.  The reason windmills are not good is that they cannot produce enough power needed for industrial purposes. Nor enough for purely residentual purposes.  Also the peopel that are pushing them do not want them where they can see them There is a windmill project in Massachutsets, Martha's Vineyard, there the Kennedy's and other wealthy influencial people live. That place is perfect for an offshore windmill farm. Yet those same people that want us to use that sort of power are trying very hard to kill the windmill farm. Because it will ruin their view of the ocean. They are for it as long as it is not in their backyard. They have different rules for themselves. The windmill farms that do exist are also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds.

Quote from: moondazed on May 16, 2006, 06:43:57 PMWhy?  Easy and Cheap?  Sorry, I don't see something so potentially detrimental as easy or cheap.  What if we spent the time and energy exploring new energy sources?  As long as automakers keep a lot of the new technologies patented so that they can't be researched further we'll never know... unless we reward people who are thinking outside of the box.  Nuclear energy was discovered in a time when that type of thinking was rewarded and funded.

The effects of n uclear power, spent fuel rods, can be dealt with. Launbching it into orbit, then into the sun is the most efficient way of getting rid of it. Automakers can only keep some technologies 'bottled' up.  For what it's used for, nothing can beat nuclear for cleanliness and safety. The US has not had a nuclear accident in decades and nothing on the scale of Chernoble.



Quote from: moondazed on May 16, 2006, 06:43:57 PMThere are energy sources all around us, it's a matter of extracting the energy.  Such as ethanol... the only real discussion about actually pursuing it has been in reference to corn ethanol instead of sugarbeet ethanol, which is 4 times more efficient.  Why?  The corn lobbyists.  Man, our system is screwed up *sigh*

Wrong. The continental US is not suited for growing sugercane crops. The only places that could possible are Hawaii or maybe Florida. If a hurricane didn't wander thru the state and wipe it all out. Besides ethenol, there is hydrogen. That is the cleanbest burning fuel, but it requires alot of electricity to seperate it out from oxygen and into liguid form. Sugerbeets migh tbe possible. It depends. Aprt of the problem with ethenol is that it binds with water and tends to seperate out and gel in colder temperatures.

Moondazed

Again, I'll assume that you're not being condescending in saying that I'm "Wrong."  I don't seem to recall touting windmills, either *shrug*

Know what?  I'm going to agree to disagree, since the title of this thread is not, "Energy, and what we think about it" :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Zakharra

 I'm not intending to sound condensending. I'm just saying that the alternative forms of energy are not as good as what we have now. At this time. Eventually we will get huge solar farms in space that beam the energy back to Earth and out there, enviromental concerns do not exist.

Agree to disagree? That works.  :)  There was a whole thread worth of arguement on energy a few months ago.

RogueJedi

You know, I just read Molly Ivins' column responding to Bush's idea to send the National Guard to the border.  For the life of me, I don't know what to make of the insane babbling she does.  That we are offending Mexico by sending National Guardsmen to the border?  Give me a break!  I don't care if I offend Mexico, frankly the president of Mexico offends me with his helping people to illegally cross our border.

I know that Molly was best friends with Ann Richards, whom Bush trounced for the Texas governorship several years ago (and then trounced her other best friend four years later by an even bigger margin), but this is ridiculous.  EVERYTHING Bush does, according to her is outright evil, on the level of Hitler.

National Acrobat

Yes, I agree and last night I was watching the pundits on television and there was a mexican congressman (from the Mexican Assembly in their government) who stated to the moderator that 'this is tantamount to the President of the US declaring war on Mexico' which I thought was a bit much.

I was listening to the Mac Watson show yesterday here in central Va. and the majority of the callers felt that Bush didn't say or do enough. Oddly enough, most of them said that he lacked the 'conviction' that usually fills his voice and facial features when he is speaking about something that really matters to him.

I could care less if we offend Mexico either. I think that if they can patrol their southern border and keep it closed, they should aid us in the same endeavors on their northern borders.

Zakharra

Quote from: RogueJedi on May 17, 2006, 08:16:35 AM
You know, I just read Molly Ivins' column responding to Bush's idea to send the National Guard to the border.  For the life of me, I don't know what to make of the insane babbling she does.  That we are offending Mexico by sending National Guardsmen to the border?  Give me a break!  I don't care if I offend Mexico, frankly the president of Mexico offends me with his helping people to illegally cross our border.

I know that Molly was best friends with Ann Richards, whom Bush trounced for the Texas governorship several years ago (and then trounced her other best friend four years later by an even bigger margin), but this is ridiculous.  EVERYTHING Bush does, according to her is outright evil, on the level of Hitler.

Yes. Bush gets blasted for 'letting' 9-11 happen, then when he tries to protect the country, he gets blasted and everything he tries is blocked.   

I could care less if we offend Mexico. As I said before. Fuck'em. If Fox wants to pick a fight over this, is he going to piss off millions of legal citizens of the US, including millions of legal immigrants that do NOT want the illegals to get any amnesty. We have a l;egal right to e nforce our borders and kn ow who is coming into  our country. If Mexico protests, I'd like to see them try to stop us. The most effective way they have is the oil they pump, but we could still buy it once it's on the world market. They cannot stop that from happening.

Another worry is that nutcase in Venezuala, Chavez, who says he's thinking of selling some of the F-16's we sold him, to Iran. That sale we can stop and will stop.

National Acrobat

Quote from: Zakharra on May 17, 2006, 08:27:15 AM

Another worry is that nutcase in Venezuala, Chavez, who says he's thinking of selling some of the F-16's we sold him, to Iran. That sale we can stop and will stop.

You know, even if Iran buys the planes, they can't get spare parts.

That's what happened in 1979 when the Shah was driven out. They had a bunch of F-14's we'd sold the Shah and F-4's, but no one was trained to fly them, and they couldn't get spare parts, so a whole fleet of planes rotted in the desert.

I don't believe Bush let 9-11 happen, but I am not thrilled with his party, him, the democrats or any democrat's 'non-plan' that is only worded as 'it's better than Bush'.

Both parties suck right now as a whole group. Each may have a few individuals worthy of attention, but on the whole, the two-party system as it stands is just a complete morass.

Zakharra

 When we sell any other nation high tech weapons, like planes, there is a caveot written into the sale contract. That they cannot sell the planes to anyoine else without our official and express permission. If Venezuala doesa sell them, we can legally go in and take the planes back, or destroy them since he is breaking a legally binding contract that is recognized the world over.

This election cycle, I'm going to vote for a new Senator. I'm not thrilled with any sen ators right now. The Republ icans are acting like spineless Democrates and the democrates are not giving ANY reasons to vote for them other than as you said, 'Anything but Bush'. The House has balls thought. They actually do what their constituants want.

National Acrobat

Quote from: Zakharra on May 17, 2006, 08:39:17 AM
When we sell any other nation high tech weapons, like planes, there is a caveot written into the sale contract. That they cannot sell the planes to anyoine else without our official and express permission. If Venezuala doesa sell them, we can legally go in and take the planes back, or destroy them since he is breaking a legally binding contract that is recognized the world over.

This election cycle, I'm going to vote for a new Senator. I'm not thrilled with any sen ators right now. The Republ icans are acting like spineless Democrates and the democrates are not giving ANY reasons to vote for them other than as you said, 'Anything but Bush'. The House has balls thought. They actually do what their constituants want.

I know, I just think it would be funny to watch them pay a ton of money for something they couldn't use. Kinda like spending your allowance on nothing. But in all honesty, the sale would need to be blocked simply to not allow any reverse-engineering or resale on the black market.

As for the House, I think the House is slightly in better touch with their constituents than the Senate, but not by much.

The democrats main problem is that even with Clueless George's approval ratings in the toilet, they still can't come up with a solid message or defining 'plan' to govern more efficiently or better.

The mantra 'better than Bush' holds no water when you can't offer a sound, solid alternative to the current situation.

Zakharra

 Yes. That will have a good significance this November if they cannot put forth any real plans to do anything. They will not be able to use their normal methods of vague promises and words, but have to have hard facts and plans. That's one reason Kerry lost. He had nothing solid to stand on. And in these times, people want to know, for a fact, what their leader stands for and is going to do.

Of course I think that Kerry is a spineless coward who would pander to anyone and give up huge chunks of our national soveriegnty to the UN and Europe.

National Acrobat

That's all the Dems really need, is a strong plan and platform that doesn't pander to everyone. If they could somehow manage to work on cutting spending and entitlements along with that, they'd be solid. They promise too much to everyone though, and spend an inordinate amount of time arguing with each other. They are fighting with each other over their candidate who is running against Santorum in Pa. because he's pro-life and anti-gun control.

One thing that I think both parties could really use a lesson in, is that it is ok to have members of your party who don't believe in 100% of what you do. It's ok to have some diversity, and in fact, that would make a better party than one where everyone believes in exactly the same thing as everyone else.

Purple

I have no problems with disagreeing with the current administration in office.  Even I, a staunch conservative and republican, do not approve of every single action taken during the last two terms (don't get me started, however, on the two before these).  I take great offense, however, to the out-and-out disrespecting of the President of the United States.  Love him or hate him or be lukewarm about him, but do not disrespect the office please.  For 229 years this country has had a president that sometimes is good and sometimes is bad.  And sometimes we don't even know how good and bad they were until many, many years passed and we are able to look at things in a different light.  Remember that not even Washington or Lincoln was liked by everyone even though we rarely even consider the possibility now.  For over 230 years men and women have died so that our system of government can be preserved, and while it is our right...no, our duty as American citizens (those of us that are of course) to question those in office we must always treat those in office with respect and courtesy.  I think that discussion is our greatest tool in fixing what is wrong with this country, and I encourage it.  But calling President Bush names (and especially the dreaded Mr. Bush from the media as if implying he isn't the president or isn't worthy) doesn't solve any problems and disrespects the office of the President, our country, and the men and women who have fought for this country.  Please don't, even if you disagree with me, err on the side of caution.  State your position without resorting to name-calling.
There's something very sexy about being submissive. Because your guard is down, you have to totally surrender to something like that. --Eva Longoria

Moondazed

Politics and religion are two things that are hard to talk about... it's difficult to debate without involving emotions (and I'm a bit scared of those who can! :) ), but it's important to express our feelings and opinions and allow others to do so.  Sure, it would be nice if everyone were cordial, but the fact is that I'm happy to see people getting riled up about the current situation.  Complacency only serves those in power, after all.

And I love the fact that being an American allows me to openly give or withhold my respect, regardless of anyone's social position.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

National Acrobat

Actually, being the conservative that I am, and generally supporting republicans, I feel more impassioned when I speak out.

You should hear what I said about and called Bill Clinton and the first Bush president.

Emotions run hard when you discuss politics and religion, and sometimes there is just no other way to get how you feel about someone out. I certainly don't disrespect the office, but then again I am one of those people who absolutely hate to see someone sully the reputation of the Oval Office as well.

Purple

Quote from: moondazed on May 17, 2006, 01:47:11 PM
Politics and religion are two things that are hard to talk about... it's difficult to debate without involving emotions (and I'm a bit scared of those who can! :) ), but it's important to express our feelings and opinions and allow others to do so.  Sure, it would be nice if everyone were cordial, but the fact is that I'm happy to see people getting riled up about the current situation.  Complacency only serves those in power, after all.

And I love the fact that being an American allows me to openly give or withhold my respect, regardless of anyone's social position.

Absolutely true, but even getting emotion can be done without name-calling.  That's all I wish to avoid is blatant disrespect of our country and our institutions.  I'm fed up with many of the current problems, but the majority of these are not Bush's fault.  A greater grasp of economics, for example, has helped me to realize that Bush is not to blame for the economic difficulties we have such as gas prices.  Blame OPEC for having a monopoly on oil, not Bush, for example.  Your last sentence in particular is exactly what I'm talking about.  And I praise the good Lord in heaven (sorry if I offend anybody there) that Bush is strong enough to try to protect that right in the way that he believes is the best.  Disagreeing with each other is all based on our schema and outlooks, and there's nothing wrong with that.  However, just like I won't call somebody in this thread here (nobody in particular--this is just an example) any names, I think the same courtesy should also be extended to President Bush, after all, he's not even here to defend himself (and I consider attacking someone who can not defend themselves to be the lowest form of cowardice).

No worries...I'm not angry or anything, and I don't wish to make anybody else angry.  These are my opinions that I am granted the right to express by the Bill of Rights.  :)
There's something very sexy about being submissive. Because your guard is down, you have to totally surrender to something like that. --Eva Longoria

ZK

As for my whole summary is going. Myself and my family [mother's side] is getting sick of the US. Perhaps, if things continue to spiral downward as they are in our household and various other reasons I will not speak of, well, we'll be jumping the country. X.x
On's/Off's --- Game Reviews

"Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may judge what is sane."

Purple

Quote from: National Acrobat on May 17, 2006, 01:54:09 PM
Actually, being the conservative that I am, and generally supporting republicans, I feel more impassioned when I speak out.

You should hear what I said about and called Bill Clinton and the first Bush president.

Emotions run hard when you discuss politics and religion, and sometimes there is just no other way to get how you feel about someone out. I certainly don't disrespect the office, but then again I am one of those people who absolutely hate to see someone sully the reputation of the Oval Office as well.

I get impassioned as well.  I detested the way Bill Clinton made us look like a laughing stock and pretty much dismantled our military.  But never once did I call him a name.  I always referred to him as President Clinton, and never with a sneer.  Part of our great country is not just our right to free speech, it is also the right that affords each and every person life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Slandering someone by calling them names infinges upon those rights.  Being in a free country means we also must act responsibly towards our fellow citizens, and President Bush is one.  And President Bush has done far less to sully the office than did President Clinton or his father President Bush (that 'read my lips...' must be the stupident thing any presidential hopeful has ever said...).
There's something very sexy about being submissive. Because your guard is down, you have to totally surrender to something like that. --Eva Longoria

ZK

I don't know if I should be upset or simply neutral about the entire situation. My grandparents on both sides started this with my family as they both came to the US through legal imigration from two different countries following the usual pins and needles you have to go through for non-native English speakers and such.


As for rights and such, I enjoy them. But I am getting sick of the price people have to pay in this country for a right...as well, some would dare say faux pas. I've been offered to go live with a relative in Tokyo Japan, it'd be a nice change. Only problem is that... I don't really care for the city. It's too damn expensive and way over-crowded. As well as with my heritage and where I was born.. oh my, well, let's just say it won't be good. x.x

So, I don't know what to do, honestly. x.x
On's/Off's --- Game Reviews

"Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may judge what is sane."

National Acrobat

Purple, you're a better person than I. I tend to wear my emotions on my sleeve, and I am very blunt and direct when it comes to discussing the issues. Which sometimes leads me to express said-frustration with a not-so-nice comment.

It's me, and you can't imagine how I've had to hold my tongue at PTA meetings to prevent starting a brouhaha!  ::)

I think politicians know that they are going to be in the public eye, and that even if it isn't always right, they are going to be the targets of ire and have to have a thick skin, whether it's right or wrong.

The president, unfortunately, is a special case. We tend to give President's credit for things that they have no control or effect over, glamorizing them as being achievers, showering them with undeserved adulation. The opposite is true when things are going badly, they recieve the most flak and vitriol. Unfortunately, that's the way it works, whether people like it or not. Given the current situations in America Domestically and abroad, the President is a lightning rod more than ever.

Does that justify it, probably not, but that's the way it goes.

Moondazed

Quote from: Purple on May 17, 2006, 02:02:01 PM
I get impassioned as well.  I detested the way Bill Clinton made us look like a laughing stock and pretty much dismantled our military.  But never once did I call him a name.  I always referred to him as President Clinton, and never with a sneer.  Part of our great country is not just our right to free speech, it is also the right that affords each and every person life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Slandering someone by calling them names infinges upon those rights.  Being in a free country means we also must act responsibly towards our fellow citizens, and President Bush is one.  And President Bush has done far less to sully the office than did President Clinton or his father President Bush (that 'read my lips...' must be the stupident thing any presidential hopeful has ever said...).

This is the point where I get impassioned, so I'll apologize ahead of time.  I fail to see where anything President Clinton did is any more embarrassing than President (and I only use that word to avoid offending in both cases) Bush not having a command of the English language, let alone the glaring inaccuracy of so many of his claims, for which he gives his silly grin and expects it to be glossed over.  The only difference I see is that one was personally irresponsible and the other is much better at donning his "devout Christian" mantle.

I agree it's not all his fault, I agree he's not solely responsible, but I am deeply disturbed by the willingness of so many Americans to let their views on gay marriage, abortion and gun control decide who they vote for without any concern for the rest of the picture.  I'm sorry, but no one will ever be able to convince me that the Republicans didn't gain their current majority based on their constant hammering at those issues to draw attention from others in which they had failed miserably.

And in response to National Acrobat... I think that if more people were honest and open about their feeling and opinions we'd have a MUCH more representative democracy, instead of the system that we have now... which panders to the squeaky wheels and the thick wallets.

Please know that the previous statements are in my humble opinion, and are in no way meant to be inflammatory.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Lilac

Quote from: moondazed on May 16, 2006, 06:43:57 PM
I'll take "takes up space" over "hangs around for hundreds of years" any day, thank you.  I guess "surmountable" is subjective, because I don't see nuclear waste as surmountable.

Well the chief byproducts of nuclear waste are carbon-14 (easily returned to the ground if properly dispersed, or just dropped back into uranium mines) and tritium (useful for fusion research, but also has an exceedingly short half-life, though it is highly toxic).  Much of the rest can be used as future nuclear fuel.  Past that is neutron embrittlement of the reactor casing, for the most part.

QuoteWhy?  Easy and Cheap?  Sorry, I don't see something so potentially detrimental as easy or cheap.  What if we spent the time and energy exploring new energy sources?  As long as automakers keep a lot of the new technologies patented so that they can't be researched further we'll never know... unless we reward people who are thinking outside of the box.  Nuclear energy was discovered in a time when that type of thinking was rewarded and funded.

People are already whining about the rise in electricity costs - see what happenned in Cali.  The United States can burn coal (which puts much of the same 'radioactive waste' into the atmosphere, just like the Chinese coal fires have been doing since the paleolithic).

The problem is people want a one-size-fits-all solution.  "Wind power won't solve everything." "Solar cell technology is too inefficient with cheaply available materials." "All radioactive waste from nuclear reactors is bad." "Coal-scrubbing is too expensive." "Natural gas won't power my car." ...

Right now we're consuming something on the order of four centuries worth of planetary biomass a year, in oil alone.  'Cutting back' isn't going to be enough.  Researching a single solution isn't going to be enough.

QuoteThere are energy sources all around us, it's a matter of extracting the energy.  Such as ethanol... the only real discussion about actually pursuing it has been in reference to corn ethanol instead of sugarbeet ethanol, which is 4 times more efficient.  Why?  The corn lobbyists.  Man, our system is screwed up *sigh*

On top of lobbyists, we also have a serious case of NIMBY syndrome that is developing into a case of NIMBYOAEE (Not in my backyard or anyone else's either) regarding nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal or tidal energy.

National Acrobat

QuoteNIMBY syndrome

That's a force that stops anything. I've never understood why people are quite willing to sacrifice the domicile of other people for things, but are not willing to contribute to the whole picture themselves.

We're having this problem in Virginia with a giant wind farm that is being proposed in Highland County. It's been interesting to see both sides of the issue on this, and I sympathize with both sides. However, people are going to have to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to actually accepting and putting into practice some alternative sources of energy.

People are quick to embrace them, until someone suggests that their neck of the woods be a central focus.

Moondazed

Quote from: National Acrobat on May 17, 2006, 02:31:16 PM
That's a force that stops anything. I've never understood why people are quite willing to sacrifice the domicile of other people for things, but are not willing to contribute to the whole picture themselves.

We're having this problem in Virginia with a giant wind farm that is being proposed in Highland County. It's been interesting to see both sides of the issue on this, and I sympathize with both sides. However, people are going to have to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to actually accepting and putting into practice some alternative sources of energy.

People are quick to embrace them, until someone suggests that their neck of the woods be a central focus.

The same thing just happened in Orange County with a brick company wanting to mine for clay.  Those who live nowhere near the site but work there were all for it, while those who would be directly affected (low-income, what a surprise!) were scared of the affects such projects had had on other towns.  When it didn't go through there were scalding letters in the paper from those who worked there, and I sympathize with them, but that doesn't change what would have happened if it had gone through, nor did it negate the evidence that it had happened on numerous occasions in other locations.

I always say that people rarely have a problem with laws, etc., until they're directly affected, and therein lies the problem, IMHO.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Purple

Quote from: moondazed on May 17, 2006, 02:21:50 PM
This is the point where I get impassioned, so I'll apologize ahead of time.  I fail to see where anything President Clinton did is any more embarrassing than President (and I only use that word to avoid offending in both cases) Bush not having a command of the English language, let alone the glaring inaccuracy of so many of his claims, for which he gives his silly grin and expects it to be glossed over.  The only difference I see is that one was personally irresponsible and the other is much better at donning his "devout Christian" mantle.

I agree it's not all his fault, I agree he's not solely responsible, but I am deeply disturbed by the willingness of so many Americans to let their views on gay marriage, abortion and gun control decide who they vote for without any concern for the rest of the picture.  I'm sorry, but no one will ever be able to convince me that the Republicans didn't gain their current majority based on their constant hammering at those issues to draw attention from others in which they had failed miserably.

And in response to National Acrobat... I think that if more people were honest and open about their feeling and opinions we'd have a MUCH more representative democracy, instead of the system that we have now... which panders to the squeaky wheels and the thick wallets.

Please know that the previous statements are in my humble opinion, and are in no way meant to be inflammatory.

Besides making us a laughing stock with his indescretions, accepting more foreign campaign contributions (illegal) than any other president in history, dismantling the military, gutting our intelligence capabilities,  handing our sovereignty to the United Nations (which we pay for), attempting a government takeover of 1/7 of the economy...nevermind really...what more do you need to know.  Former-President Clinton was one of the worst and least effective presidents we have ever had.  If you doubt that I should tell you that a very liberal professor at my college taught a class on his presidency...and he voted for President Clinton mind you...but he's the one that said that...worst and least effective...

Bush might not always be right, indeed it would be frightening if he was, but he has the balls to stand up and fight for what he believes in: freedom.  That alone puts him head and shoulders above the two previous presidents.  As far as President Bush not having a command of the English language: first, I don't know anyone except for Professor Henry Higgins who has an excellent grasp of so difficult a language.  In fact, President Bush talks like most people I know in the Southern half of the country, just a little redneckish which is in no way a reflection on someone's intelligence.  Nevermind the fact that Bush attended and wildly succeeded at Yale (if I remember correctly).  I wonder if any of us have ever had the same pressure that he does and then be able to speak flawless English in front of the entire world watching.  Even actors and actresses mess up their lines.  Back to the fact that dialects differ from region to region, just because the liberal press considers something to be a mistake doesn't make it so.  And sometimes, people do make mistakes.  First and foremost, President Bush is still a person, and we must remember that.  

The glaring inaccuracy of so many of his claims:  Why let Al Gore slide on his comments such as his momma used to singing him the 'look for the union label' song when he was a small child (which was before it was ever written), at one time he said that the cancer patients needed a sonogram instead of a mammogram (how long was that on the knews), direct quote from the New York Times--"When my sister and I were growing up, there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so."  Instead of the Civil War in 1861, he said 1961.  People make mistakes, I don't mean to pick on Mr. Gore...but his mistakes and out-and-out mistruths are legendary around our house.  They're Gore-isms.  So no one is immune to 'inaccuracies' or ' mistakes.  Why villify President Bush only?  Just remembered one more--it's a great one: "A zebra does not change it's spots."  Hello?

And I must admit I resent that you believe Bush is better at "donning his devout Christian mantle."  Whether you believe him or not, whether you agree with him or not, his faith has nothing to do with it.  I don't select my president based on his faith unless it might be detrimental to the country.  And most other Americans don't as well.  I am a Christian, and I am a Republican, and I am immensely proud of both.  And to many people in this country those issues that you mentioned are extremely fundamental for many reasons.  For example, I have the very controversial view that abortions, except in extreme cases, should be illegal.   Disagree with me sure, but I have my reasons and my beliefs and I will fight until my dying breath if it might save the life of a child.  Much like my eldest was born a perfectly-formed living being at just 27 weeks...and the age at which these children can be saved is increased all the time.  Yes, this issue will always be a consideration when I select my president.  As does our national defense, taxes and the economy, a reduction in big government, our natural resources, etc.  What really gets me is when people just assume that Republicans and Conservatives only care about are the issues on which we disagree with Democrats and Liberals.  Take the time to get to know us and why we choose the way we do before making blanket statements please.  You might be surprised at what we agree on and why we believe the way we do on the things on which we disagree.
There's something very sexy about being submissive. Because your guard is down, you have to totally surrender to something like that. --Eva Longoria

Jefepato

Quote from: National Acrobat on May 17, 2006, 02:31:16 PM
That's a force that stops anything. I've never understood why people are quite willing to sacrifice the domicile of other people for things, but are not willing to contribute to the whole picture themselves.

Really?  It makes perfect sense to me.

Moondazed

Quote from: Purple on May 17, 2006, 03:14:57 PM
What really gets me is when people just assume that Republicans and Conservatives only care about are the issues on which we disagree with Democrats and Liberals.  Take the time to get to know us and why we choose the way we do before making blanket statements please.  You might be surprised at what we agree on and why we believe the way we do on the things on which we disagree.

Don't tell me... you watch Fox News, right?  My statements are based on those I'm surrounded by.  I would LOVE to know why people supported him, but based on your statements talking is pointless, because you believe that the liberal media (as if that even EXISTS!) is out to get him.

Hence, again, I will agree to disagree, although I have a much harder time doing so with this one!
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Lilac

Quote from: moondazed on May 17, 2006, 05:46:34 PM
Don't tell me... you watch Fox News, right?  My statements are based on those I'm surrounded by.  I would LOVE to know why people supported him, but based on your statements talking is pointless, because you believe that the liberal media (as if that even EXISTS!) is out to get him.

Hence, again, I will agree to disagree, although I have a much harder time doing so with this one!

I tend to take a rather dim view of this kind of solution to an argument.  Clinton isn't innocent, though you'd have a hard time finding a president who was.  George Washington burned Indian villages, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (and had a kid with one)...

Clinton and Gore made like they were selling us out to China.  That's not particularly forgivable in my book.  But then you have things attributed to him that he wasn't entirely responsible for (remember, it was the Republican congress that ultimately axed our military and cut our intelligence, Clinton didn't get to set the budget, only advise it).

Bush is the most fiscally liberal president in our nation's history, and now that we're at nearly thirty trillion dollars in total (federal, state, local, corporate and consumer) debt.  We went to Iraq on two serious stretchings of the truth and comparitively ignored North Korea.  Afghanistan needed another $37 billion (an eigth of Iraq's cost) to rebuild, but apparently more pressing matters were at hand, like the risk of Iraq moving to the Euro.

National Acrobat

No presidents are innocent, and compared to what has been made public knowledge, I shudder at some of the things that we'll never know about, that many have done. Usually done with 'the power' that they feel the American people have vested in them.

As for the media, it's all biased to some extent.

I'd be happy if there was simply a channel or paper that would give me:

'A happened at B at C time' with no commentary, opinion, diatribes, etc. to accompany it at all. However, Americans expect entertainment with their news, and would be unable to process unfiltered and unopinionated news.

Zakharra

 ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the major media news print are very liberal in their coverage.They consistantly have stories that bash the President far more than not.  Radio is mostly conservative, with some print media and Tv, FOX news, the same. The internet has both sides and all of the angles and twists in between.

Purple

Quote from: moondazed on May 17, 2006, 05:46:34 PM
Don't tell me... you watch Fox News, right?  My statements are based on those I'm surrounded by.  I would LOVE to know why people supported him, but based on your statements talking is pointless, because you believe that the liberal media (as if that even EXISTS!) is out to get him.

Hence, again, I will agree to disagree, although I have a much harder time doing so with this one!

Um no, I actually don't.  The news I get is from scouring the internet from ALL major news sources but not Fox as well as a combination of some conservative sources.  I read Time and Newsweek as well.  If you do your research it's easy to determine what's really going on.  Particularly if you know some people in government and overseas, which I do.  I get more accurate news about what's happening in Iraq and how the Iraqi's feel about us than what we see on the news.  It is liberal, even most liberals will tell you that it's liberal.  And I've lost the site but several years ago journalist majors were polled to see why they wanted to become journalists and an overwhelming majority said that it was not to REPORT THE NEWS, but to CHANGE THE WORLD.  A journalist's job is to accurately report the news, not put their personal spin on it.

Not only does the liberal media exists, it is out to get him.  How else do you explain glossing over everything that liberals do for the most part and reporting OVER AND OVER on mistakes conservatives make whether on purpose or on accident.  Need I remind you that CBS I believe actually fabricated a story regarding President Bush's military service to 'get a story' and make him look bad?  Or maybe that was just some good-hearted person who honestly believed he was going to change the world by ridding us of President Bush?

Yes, our debt has skyrocketed.  I don't approve of that.  But the president does have to answer to the Congress, sometimes that means ridiculous things get added to bills in order to get the important stuff done so it's not all his fault though the lion's share of the blame does rest on his shoulders.  It's one of those things that I wish were better but realize that not everything can be accomplished in only eight years.  Each presidency is supposed to build upon the previous one, but unfortunately us mortal humans haven't yet figured out how to do that quite right yet.
There's something very sexy about being submissive. Because your guard is down, you have to totally surrender to something like that. --Eva Longoria

Jefepato

Quote from: Purple on May 17, 2006, 09:16:34 PM
Not only does the liberal media exists, it is out to get him.  How else do you explain glossing over everything that liberals do for the most part and reporting OVER AND OVER on mistakes conservatives make whether on purpose or on accident.  Need I remind you that CBS I believe actually fabricated a story regarding President Bush's military service to 'get a story' and make him look bad?  Or maybe that was just some good-hearted person who honestly believed he was going to change the world by ridding us of President Bush?

Although I do agree that the media tends to be liberally biased, "they're out to get him" applies for pretty much every president.

Zakharra

Quote from: Jefepato on May 17, 2006, 09:24:29 PM
Although I do agree that the media tends to be liberally biased, "they're out to get him" applies for pretty much every president.

Not quite. They glossed over alot of things Clinton did. Bush though, they hate him with a passion and are willing to out and out lie in any effort to get him removed from office. Them and the Democratic party.

Purple

I think you're exactly right Zakharra, they certainly are and if anyone would like proof I will be more than happy to provide plenty of examples of things they've overlooked when it came to Clinton/Gore and things they've blown out of proportion for Bush/Cheney.  Of course, I would prefer to wait for several weeks (absessed tooth surgery is scheduled for Monday and I can barely think straight I'm in so much pain--the dreaded in-laws will be here all next week arriving just after said surgery--the following week I have a biopsy scheduled) if that's all right.
There's something very sexy about being submissive. Because your guard is down, you have to totally surrender to something like that. --Eva Longoria

Moondazed

Wow, it's a serious test of my self-control to continue to agree to disagree :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Lilac

Quote from: Purple on May 17, 2006, 09:16:34 PMNot only does the liberal media exists, it is out to get him.  How else do you explain glossing over everything that liberals do for the most part and reporting OVER AND OVER on mistakes conservatives make whether on purpose or on accident.  Need I remind you that CBS I believe actually fabricated a story regarding President Bush's military service to 'get a story' and make him look bad?  Or maybe that was just some good-hearted person who honestly believed he was going to change the world by ridding us of President Bush?

The attacks on Bush only began this past year.  Where's the media blitz on the Diebold fiasco (their CEO admitted to "Being committed to delivering the country to the Republican party.")?  Or the erroneous entry of so many African Americans as felons in Florida?  Or "Free Speech Zones".

Free speech zones...  I had a friend who ended up in one of those.  Caged up like animals and not even allowed to go to the bathroom.

Or the rather broad application of the Patriot Act.

QuoteYes, our debt has skyrocketed.  I don't approve of that.  But the president does have to answer to the Congress, sometimes that means ridiculous things get added to bills in order to get the important stuff done so it's not all his fault though the lion's share of the blame does rest on his shoulders.  It's one of those things that I wish were better but realize that not everything can be accomplished in only eight years.  Each presidency is supposed to build upon the previous one, but unfortunately us mortal humans haven't yet figured out how to do that quite right yet.

The thing is, until now, he didn't.  And Congress didn't have to answer to him.  No vetos, just a lot of new laws, and a lot of new bureaucracy, and very little to show for it - not even the head of the one man we wanted.

Remember the destruction of Baghdad's libraries and museums, when Rumsfeld claimed that no one could have predicted this?

Sixty years ago, when America landed in Normandy, the United States already had a special division of the military set up for the sole purpose of enforcing civil order.

Purple

Because of WWII and then Vietnam and Korea our presidents since have had a very difficult time with war.  Mostly because of the protests and fallout and the fact that so many people are able to erroneously believe that peace can happen.  Anyway, I'm not saying President Bush is perfect.  I approve of many of his actions and disapprove of many others.  Just like as I've studied throughout history I've found myself feeling the exact same way about every other president we've ever had except for President Clinton.  Even FDR had his heart in the right place to my mind.  Our presidents are not infalliable.  They make mistakes.  They choose the wrong things.  Sometimes their decisions come back to bite us.  But that's the way our country is, and like the current man in office or not, that's what we have to deal with.  Really I just wish that everyone would not make snap judgments, would not believe everything they see or hear, would take everything with a grain of salt, and really just kind of chill out a bit.  These are important issues, yes.  Absolutely.  If I didn't believe that I wouldn't volunteer my time, spend my money, nor vote for my candidates and issues.  I still stand by my earlier statement that us arguing and calling names won't solve anything.  Stay calm and have a real discussion, get ideas and information out there.  Get educated.  Make informed decisions.  That's all I really care about.  Even if nobody believe me or agrees with my opinions regarding politics, all I really care about is the exchange of ideas in a disciplined, cordial manner.
There's something very sexy about being submissive. Because your guard is down, you have to totally surrender to something like that. --Eva Longoria

Zakharra

 The attacks have been since he took office. They have just gotten far more vicious in the last year after he was re-elected. The Wellstone Memorial, the many attacks by the press against him and the convient memory loss when it came to what the Democratic party had done in Clinton's terms in office.

Lilac

Quote from: Zakharra on May 17, 2006, 09:31:15 PM
Not quite. They glossed over alot of things Clinton did. Bush though, they hate him with a passion and are willing to out and out lie in any effort to get him removed from office. Them and the Democratic party.

Somewhere about Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan's time I think they stopped caring about reporting on what should concern Americans (possibly selling secrets to China for election funds!?  $%$#ing ...  I would really like to know what stopped that investigation, it sure as hell wasn't just Clinton) to what they think is entertaining (Clinton gets a blowjob, Bush claims to catch a Perch twice the size of the current record holder...).  But, for that, even Clinton had attacks since he got into office.

Rumor has it the old boy's club covers up the excesses of the previous generation so the next generation will cover up theirs.  What we're seeing now is mostly due to the full breakdown of Bush's popularity, not so much because of the (slightly less these days) liberal bias of the media.

QuoteBecause of WWII and then Vietnam and Korea our presidents since have had a very difficult time with war.  Mostly because of the protests and fallout and the fact that so many people are able to erroneously believe that peace can happen.  Anyway, I'm not saying President Bush is perfect.  I approve of many of his actions and disapprove of many others.  Just like as I've studied throughout history I've found myself feeling the exact same way about every other president we've ever had except for President Clinton.  Even FDR had his heart in the right place to my mind.  Our presidents are not infalliable.  They make mistakes.  They choose the wrong things.  Sometimes their decisions come back to bite us.  But that's the way our country is, and like the current man in office or not, that's what we have to deal with.  Really I just wish that everyone would not make snap judgments, would not believe everything they see or hear, would take everything with a grain of salt, and really just kind of chill out a bit.  These are important issues, yes.  Absolutely.  If I didn't believe that I wouldn't volunteer my time, spend my money, nor vote for my candidates and issues.  I still stand by my earlier statement that us arguing and calling names won't solve anything.  Stay calm and have a real discussion, get ideas and information out there.  Get educated.  Make informed decisions.  That's all I really care about.  Even if nobody believe me or agrees with my opinions regarding politics, all I really care about is the exchange of ideas in a disciplined, cordial manner.

Honestly, I think FDR's foresight probably rivalled Thomas Jefforson's.  Either that, or FDR listenned to people who had such foresight.  He made some mistakes, yes.  He was not perfect, yes.  He was a bit underhanded, yes.  But, during his tenure:

1: He destroyed any chance of fascism's rise in the United States for at least fifty years (certainly the jingoistic preaching and selling out to corporations is rather fascist looking but it seems to be dying now)
2: He goaded Japan into attacking the United States first, and Germany was stupid enough to follow through with declaring war.
3: He began preparations for America's military buildup for WWII before it was declared in Europe.

Zakharra

Quote from: Lilac on May 18, 2006, 12:08:04 AM
Somewhere about Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan's time I think they stopped caring about reporting on what should concern Americans (possibly selling secrets to China for election funds!?  $%$#ing ...  I would really like to know what stopped that investigation, it sure as hell wasn't just Clinton) to what they think is entertaining (Clinton gets a blowjob, Bush claims to catch a Perch twice the size of the current record holder...).  But, for that, even Clinton had attacks since he got into office.

Rumor has it the old boy's club covers up the excesses of the previous generation so the next generation will cover up theirs.  What we're seeing now is mostly due to the full breakdown of Bush's popularity, not so much because of the (slightly less these days) liberal bias of the media.

Clinton was the media darling, so alot was ignored or glossed over, like the Monica thing, his lying about it to a Grand Jury and getting caught in perjury. The '98 Iraq incident where he made the same claims that Bush did about WMDs in Iraq. The media and Democratic party believed him, yet when Bush said the same thing, he was not believed.  Under Clinton the military was reduced in size and China was given the ability to put sattilites in orbit, a technology that can incidently be used to accurately target ICBMs. He also took campaign donations from a foreign nation, which is a illegal act.  Thruout all of this the press and Democratic party didn't have any problem with it. They applauded it in fact. Saying that it was a good thing that he did it.

Lilac

Quote from: Zakharra on May 18, 2006, 12:18:31 AM
Clinton was the media darling, so alot was ignored or glossed over, like the Monica thing, his lying about it to a Grand Jury and getting caught in perjury. The '98 Iraq incident where he made the same claims that Bush did about WMDs in Iraq. The media and Democratic party believed him, yet when Bush said the same thing, he was not believed.  Under Clinton the military was reduced in size and China was given the ability to put sattilites in orbit, a technology that can incidently be used to accurately target ICBMs. He also took campaign donations from a foreign nation, which is a illegal act.  Thruout all of this the press and Democratic party didn't have any problem with it. They applauded it in fact. Saying that it was a good thing that he did it.

The reason he got away with perjury was because the prosecution gave a definition of sexual relations that excluded oral sex from qualifiying.  They couldn't blame Clinton for their lawyer's idiocy, and that's why he got away with it.

To my knowledge the foreign donations for technology trade were only allegations.  For some reason nothing was heard from the investigations after they began.

Likewise, there still is no mainstream discussion of the suspected election tampering by Republicans, though a few minor stories have broken recently, the alleged actions of the Republicans aren't any better.

Regarding the military cuts, that is partly Congress' and the military's fault too.  Congress ultimately controls the budget, and they were Republican.  The Military-Industrial Complex was designed to be inneficient (it made for better profits that way) and under Clinton they paid the price of that.

National Acrobat

QuoteSomewhere about Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan's time I think they stopped caring about reporting on what should concern Americans (possibly selling secrets to China for election funds!?  $%$#ing ...  I would really like to know what stopped that investigation, it sure as hell wasn't just Clinton) to what they think is entertaining (Clinton gets a blowjob, Bush claims to catch a Perch twice the size of the current record holder...).  But, for that, even Clinton had attacks since he got into office.

I agree, and it's a trend that has been followed by turning the news into entertainment. It's glitzy, it's glossy, it's got lights and sounds. The media aren't merely content with  reporting the news anymore, and that goes for all the forms of media and all outlets. They all have a bias to some degree, in some direction.

It's more condescending than anything else these days. They tell you what they feel you should know, and tell you how you should take and interpret it. Americans have gotten complacent with that, and they expect it. Gone are the days of any sort of objective reporting, where you are left to digest the facts for yourself and make a judgement. I don't even want that. I just want to know what happened. I don't care what anyone thinks of it, or whether anyone does think anything about it.

Zakharra

 Charlie Tree and the buddist nun dinner, where Gore went to get more donations. The FEC (Federal Elections Commossion, I think it's called) elected to ginore that too. That was almost a news story before it was glossed over.

The Democrates are more suspected in election fraud than the Republicans. Especially after the last 6 years. The number of times that there have been problems in Democratic areas is noticable. In 2000, the Democrates wanted the Electorial Collage removed because they lost because of fit. In '04, they wanted the Electorial Collage and didn't want the popular vote, because they lost the popular vote, which cost them the electorial collage. A good number of people were caught in voter fraud and in tampering with votes in an effort to swing the vote to Kerry. Some Dmeocrates even slashed the tires of Republican vans that were to be used to get people to the polls the day before the election. The Democrates even had thousands of lawyers ready at polling places, ready to sue if any Republican voter fraud was detected.

There have been attempts to tighten up the election system with State ID cards and ikt's always Democrates and their allies that are blocking/trying to remove those cards from being used. Because it will make it harder for them to cheat at the polls.  In South Carolina, I think, the state is trying to give everyone a state ID card. On ly those with the ID cards will be allowed to vote.  The ACLU and AANRP are trying to block it. Because they say it's racist.

Lilac

Quote from: Zakharra on May 18, 2006, 08:37:21 AM
Charlie Tree and the buddist nun dinner, where Gore went to get more donations. The FEC (Federal Elections Commossion, I think it's called) elected to ginore that too. That was almost a news story before it was glossed over.

Same thing with Gore getting tens of thousands of negative votes from a county in Florida or the Republican senator who won despite his opponent leading him 74% in polls (utterly unprecidented).  Exit poll data shows that Bush should indeed have lost the popular vote against Kerry, even taking into account their traditional anti-republican skew.

QuoteThe Democrates are more suspected in election fraud than the Republicans. Especially after the last 6 years. The number of times that there have been problems in Democratic areas is noticable. In 2000, the Democrates wanted the Electorial Collage removed because they lost because of fit. In '04, they wanted the Electorial Collage and didn't want the popular vote, because they lost the popular vote, which cost them the electorial collage. A good number of people were caught in voter fraud and in tampering with votes in an effort to swing the vote to Kerry. Some Dmeocrates even slashed the tires of Republican vans that were to be used to get people to the polls the day before the election. The Democrates even had thousands of lawyers ready at polling places, ready to sue if any Republican voter fraud was detected.

Both parties tend to, however, vote fraud was a lot easier this time.  The Leader of the RNC just got convicted for destroying the Democratic "Get out the vote" campaign by flooding their phone lines, and note all the little posters up in ghetto areas that said all fines and papers had to be in order in order to vote, including drug tests.

To say nothng of the amount of dead people who vote republican by absentee ballot.  Vote early vote often.

QuoteThere have been attempts to tighten up the election system with State ID cards and ikt's always Democrates and their allies that are blocking/trying to remove those cards from being used. Because it will make it harder for them to cheat at the polls.  In South Carolina, I think, the state is trying to give everyone a state ID card. On ly those with the ID cards will be allowed to vote.  The ACLU and AANRP are trying to block it. Because they say it's racist.

I think this gets back to part of the point of this thread, they see illegal aliens and think 'voter pool'.  It's also important to point out, though, that we don't track hidden unemployment very well in this country, and there is a legitimate fear that those people are being lost.

Purple

This can go on forever.  Both parties are guilty of illegal and immoral acts.  That's a no-brainer.  But bringing up instance after instance won't make anything any better.
There's something very sexy about being submissive. Because your guard is down, you have to totally surrender to something like that. --Eva Longoria

Lilac

Quote from: Purple on May 18, 2006, 12:45:08 PM
This can go on forever.  Both parties are guilty of illegal and immoral acts.  That's a no-brainer.  But bringing up instance after instance won't make anything any better.

It has to stop somewhere.  If I could, I'd start my own damned party and be done with it.  But sites like "Billionaires for Bush or Gore" kind of drive that point home.

Purple

Sounds good in theory, but eventually even that party would be corrupted, just like the others before it.  That's the problem with almost any institution, it's made up of people and people can be corrupted.  While I am a Republican, I do not vote a straight party ticket just to get Reps in office.  I vote the issues and my conscience based on careful research.  Putting the best candidate in office, even if sometimes neither one is that good, is one of the best ways to get some of these issues resolved.
There's something very sexy about being submissive. Because your guard is down, you have to totally surrender to something like that. --Eva Longoria

RogueJedi

It was George Washington who said that political parties are the end of democracy.  And he was right.

National Acrobat

Yes, in his parting address upon leaving office for the last time, he mentioned the 'evils of political parties' and was basically warning his two best friends, Hamilton and Jefferson, that they were heading down a dangerous road.

What foresight Washington had.

Zakharra

 Unfortunately, you can't get away from political parties. He probable meant what we are facing now. Parties that look to their own future and ignore the country's.

National Acrobat

#98
Quote from: Zakharra on May 19, 2006, 08:09:28 AM
Unfortunately, you can't get away from political parties. He probable meant what we are facing now. Parties that look to their own future and ignore the country's.

Actually from what I have understood, and what scholars have written and debated, he believed that each man running for office should do so independently of any organizational structure or affiliation, running on their merits and abilities.

Shocking I know, but I believe Washington believed that a politician should only be held accountable to those that elected him, not to any groups, interests and political parties.

Washington himself never endorsed a party.

Here's the relevant text from his farewell address:

'All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

The man had tremendous foresight, and has probably turned in his grave millions of times.

Zakharra

Quote from: National Acrobat on May 19, 2006, 08:11:33 AM

Here's the relevant text from his farewell address:

'All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

The man had tremendous foresight, and has probably turned in his grave millions of times.

Very nice. The man was a visionary beyond his times. It'd be nice if that speech was read beforte the country again.

National Acrobat

I know that it used to be read at least once a year in Congress. I just don't know when that stopped.

It wouldn't get a second of airplay today in Congress.