Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

[jlcooke3]

I think I might know where you're going with this as it relates to our involvement in the Middle East and our incarceration of individuals. While it may or may not be legal is something that is best left up to the legal beagles. However, from a moralistic perspective (if one views that as important)we invaded Iraq with the moral high ground of not treating people like Saddam (improper incarceration, lack of due process, speedy trial etc). Yet with the open ended internments at Gitmo there is a PR angle being used against us in just that manner. I won't get into the differences between what has been construed as torture by Saddam versus what occurred at Abu Ghraib. While I don't approve what occurred in Abu Ghraib it is certainly less severe than what was occurring there during Saddam's tenure.

Actually I was thinking of two specific instances.
1. Terrorist/Combatant detainees and whether or not they should receive the same protection under our Constitution in regards to civilian law or should they be held under military law. My personal thoughts on this is that these particular individuals whether captured overseas or in the United States should be prosecuted according to military law.

2. Illegal Aliens that commit crimes on U.S. soil. At what point does the rights afforded to U.S. citizens carry over to those who are not citizens and are not here legally?

We'll skip the torture debate for now as I was thinking more inline with what due process rights, search and seizure rights, etc. that non-citizens should be entitled to.

[FyredUp]

Someone (maybe you since it's Sunday and I'm too lazy to scroll up) that auto weapons that are legally owned have been used in few if any crimes. I could make the conclusion that it is the tight regulation (not specified in the Bill of Rights) that is the reason there is little criminal activity.

And BTW. I agree. If I had the ability and resources I would own a 1928A1 Thompson. One of my neighbors carried one in VN when he was sent there as an "advisor" during the Kennedy administration. He said it weighed it a ton while carrying through the jungle but it delivered a punch when it was needed most.

I guess you missed my point about the fully automaitc weapons. The point is those used in crimes are NOT legally owned. Do you think the converted AK-47's used in the LA bank robbery were legally owned? Do you think the miriad of automatic weapons used by gangbangers and drug dealers are legally owned? The vast overwhelming majority of fully automatic weapons used in crimes are illegally purchased and owned. The strict regulation does not do a single damn thing to prevent that. If we were serious about ending gun crime here is what we would do, anytime a gun was used in a crime additional time is added that can't be plea bargained away. So even if the criminal gets a slap on the wrist for robbing the 7-11 he still gets 10 or 20 years for using a gun. No parole for that part of the sentence. You serve it all. We don't need more laws punishing those who own firearms legally, we need to enforce what we have against criminals and leave law abiders alone. By the way I have no problem with background checks to ensure that criminals don't acquire guns through legal sources.

I guess one thing we agree on is the Thompson...nothing like a good old .45 caliber classic Tommy Gun. Which by the way until 1934 you could go down to the local hardware store and buy just like you could buy a shovel or a hammer.

[scfire86]

I would like your thoughts on 2 points I brought up.
1. Should one right guaranteed to us in the Constitution's Bill of Rights be limited more than any other right. For example at what point does a citizens right to keep and bear arms become any less important than his right to be secure from illegal search and seizures.

I would have to give this some thought. It's a question I've never considered.

2. Who is granted these rights in the Constitution? Is it a citizen of the United States of America? Is it anyone who is on American soil? Or is it anyone we come in contact with?

I think I might know where you're going with this as it relates to our involvement in the Middle East and our incarceration of individuals. While it may or may not be legal is something that is best left up to the legal beagles. However, from a moralistic perspective (if one views that as important)we invaded Iraq with the moral high ground of not treating people like Saddam (improper incarceration, lack of due process, speedy trial etc). Yet with the open ended internments at Gitmo there is a PR angle being used against us in just that manner. I won't get into the differences between what has been construed as torture by Saddam versus what occurred at Abu Ghraib. While I don't approve what occurred in Abu Ghraib it is certainly less severe than what was occurring there during Saddam's tenure.

[scfire86]

scfire86...

Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, just like your desire to protect the 4th and 5th amendment. A shame you want to pick and choose to fit your agenda.

Someone (maybe you since it's Sunday and I'm too lazy to scroll up) that auto weapons that are legally owned have been used in few if any crimes. I could make the conclusion that it is the tight regulation (not specified in the Bill of Rights) that is the reason there is little criminal activity.

And BTW. I agree. If I had the ability and resources I would own a 1928A1 Thompson. One of my neighbors carried one in VN when he was sent there as an "advisor" during the Kennedy administration. He said it weighed it a ton while carrying through the jungle but it delivered a punch when it was needed most.

[jlcooke3]

I agree with your premise regarding the Declaration of Independence as long as one recognizes the D of I is a bold statement of philosophical priciples and (to us)eternal verities that control, or ought to control, the governance of men and nations.
I believe we both see it in the same light. The Declaration of Independence, at least the preamble, is akin to what we would call a mission statement. A guiding force. The Constitution on the other hand is more of our Standard Operating Procedure's for the nation's laws.

The Founders were more clever (or at least more flexible in the connection between their philosophic belief and their addressing of reality. They also recognized as few others, in that day or since have that ideas are powerful things - so powerful that any one, allowed untrammeled authority, inevitably becomes tyrannical.
I believe it to be more ideals than ideas there is a distinct if subtle difference.
Majority rule, untempered, becomes the whim of the mob. The wholesale adoption of a “consent of the governed” philosophy results in a government with power so atomized that it becomes ineffectual, and so not just unable to protect liberty but inimical to it. No concept, however worthy in the abstract, could or should be given unlimited sway. Ideogical conclusions, and human nature, were never to be entirely trusted.
I understand where you are going with this particular line of thought. My only dissenting remarks would be to the "consent of the governed". Governments of any kind only exist at the behest of the people. This isn't so much a governmental process as more of a social condition of people as a whole. People allow themselves to be ruled, the main reason that governments do not come and go as whims of the people is change. No matter how tyrannical the government, with a few exceptions of course, most governments realize that their continued rule rest solely on keeping the majority of its citizens complacent enough to fear a change of government.
And so the Constitution was born - the most exquisite counterbalancing of rights and responsibilities, powers and obligations, ceded authority and retained autonomy, that has ever been crafted. It’s a work of collective genius, and it very deliberately lacks much -in the way of high-flown rhetoric like that which Jefferson was able to include in the Declaration. It’s worth noting that Jefferson’s editor on the Declaration, Franklin, was present at the Constitutional Convention - if anyone had authorty to call the developing document a betrayal of the older manifesto, it was him. Yet at the Convention’s end, he deemed the sunburst pattern on the back of Washington’s chair to be a rising, not a setting, sun.

A long winded response to be sure. I hope it makes my point regarding the infringements upon the Bill of Rights.

A very thoughtful post indeed. While it definitely makes your point regarding my inclusion of the Declaration of Independence into the discussion your points regarding the Bill of Rights is for all intense purposes "hidden" within your reply. It's what many of us would term a "politicians reply" you answer the question so to speak without really answering the question. Well done.

I would like your thoughts on 2 points I brought up.
1. Should one right guaranteed to us in the Constitution's Bill of Rights be limited more than any other right. For example at what point does a citizens right to keep and bear arms become any less important than his right to be secure from illegal search and seizures.

2. Who is granted these rights in the Constitution? Is it a citizen of the United States of America? Is it anyone who is on American soil? Or is it anyone we come in contact with?

On second thought we made need to start a new thread as this doesn't exactly fall in line with the orginal posters theme.

[FyredUp]

scfire86...

So, no response from you. Hm, I didn't think it would be this easy to get you to see the light.

Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, just like your desire to protect the 4th and 5th amendment. A shame you want to pick and choose to fit your agenda.

As for me I would protect all your rights. Including the right to free speech even when you distort the facts and speak on a topic where you have apparently no first hand knowledge.

Have a nice day.

[scfire86]

I find it ironic that in one post you clearly state your support and belief in the Constitution yet in a previous post you clearly place little to no value in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution by limiting its purpose to "sporting".

JCooke. That is a very thoughtful post. Thank you. I agree with your premise regarding the Declaration of Independence as long as one recognizes the D of I is a bold statement of philosophical priciples and (to us)eternal verities that control, or ought to control, the governance of men and nations.

It is, however, no nuts and bolts model for how to conduct that task, of governance of a free people. The Founders tried a form of national government devoted to the ideas of consent of the governed to the nth degree, under the Articles of Confederation - and it bombed. Similarly, one reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War was the weakness of the central government that it established, in deference to its states’ rights consent of the governed philosophy - yielding a government so unable to function effectively that an exasperated Jefferson Davis remarked, “If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone, ‘Died of a Theory’”.

So that sort of model has been tried, more than once, and it’s failed.

The Founders were more clever (or at least more flexible in the connection between their philosophic belief and their addressing of reality. They also recognized as few others, in that day or since have that ideas are powerful things - so powerful that any one, allowed untrammeled authority, inevitably becomes tyrannical. Majority rule, untempered, becomes the whim of the mob. The wholesale adoption of a “consent of the governed” philosophy results in a government with power so atomized that it becomes ineffectual, and so not just unable to protect liberty but inimical to it. No concept, however worthy in the abstract, could or should be given unlimited sway. Ideogical conclusions, and human nature, were never to be entirely trusted.

And so the Constitution was born - the most exquisite counterbalancing of rights and responsibilities, powers and obligations, ceded authority and retained autonomy, that has ever been crafted. It’s a work of collective genius, and it very deliberately lacks much -in the way of high-flown rhetoric like that which Jefferson was able to include in the Declaration. It’s worth noting that Jefferson’s editor on the Declaration, Franklin, was present at the Constitutional Convention - if anyone had authorty to call the developing document a betrayal of the older manifesto, it was him. Yet at the Convention’s end, he deemed the sunburst pattern on the back of Washington’s chair to be a rising, not a setting, sun.

A long winded response to be sure. I hope it makes my point regarding the infringements upon the Bill of Rights.

[txgp17]

Eh? Surely you're not going to sit there and state that liberal policies and ideology promote SUV's and "gas guzzlers" are you?

Do you see where I said that? Why does a liberal always have to try winning an argument by putting words in their opponents mouth?

Since you're inept at reading comprehension I'll spell it out for you. We did this do ourselves. We chose to drive inefficient vehicles and live 30 minutes from work. Our rise in power in the last century relied more on the supply of cheap oil than any other factor.

But these factors were exacerbated by the fact that liberal sandal-wearing, granola-eating, tree hugging environ-fascists go into a tissy fit anytime someone wants to drill a new oil well on US soil. Drilling for new oil will not solve this problem, but it will lessen the impact.

Conservative/republican policies and ideas concerning deregulation and the "free market" are well known. It's a complete scam on the American people, and always has been. I mean, the poor oil companies are just struggling to survive in these hard times.

Yes, free markets are a scam. Shame on someone for seeking to maximize their profits. It is the basic purpose of any business.

A crystal ball?? What the hell are you talking about? Chimpy McFlightsuit just doesn't give a damn. Nearly every economist and expert analyst in the nation was predicting this mess for years, while King George fiddled away.

So why didn't you listen to them, and why didn't you buy a hybrid, and then STFU. And since you don't have an all inclusive list of economic experts & analysts with a tally of their predictions, your claim is unsubstantiated. It's not the governments responsibility to "create" low oil prices. If you want to live in a place where the government does that for you, then learn Spanish and move to Cuba.

If you think price controls is the way to go, then you've economic amnesia. Try reading something from someone who know more than you & I.

Pelosi has said that she wants Bush to release the Strategic Oil Reserves to lower the price. So it's clear that she knows that increasing supply cause a drop in price. So why is she so stupid to prohibit any legislation that would allow for an increase in supply by drilling for it close to home?

She doesn't understand that releasing reserves in not a sustainable action. And if we lose those reserves and encounter a shortage, we are totally screwed.

[jlcooke3]

No one seems to care the 4th or 5th Ammendment has been demolished. But listen to the cries of outrage if someone wants to ban a firearm that has no sporting purpose.

This is exactly the same type of activity we (the US) would criticize the KGB for performing on their citizens.

I guess my belief in the Constitution goes beyond yours.

I find it ironic that in one post you clearly state your support and belief in the Constitution yet in a previous post you clearly place little to no value in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution by limiting its purpose to "sporting". I'm sure we will disagree on this subject but it is one that I truly believe in. I believe that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted because of another very important document, a document that many of us relegate to history without realizing its importance today. That document is the Declaration of Independence, in that document you will find the following;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.*

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.* That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,*--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I truly believe that our forefathers understood that their may come a time in the course of this great nation that the people would have to once again throw of the chains of tyranny and ensure their future security. In order to accomplish this the citizens of this nation would require arms. Not sporting arms, not hunting arms, not military arms, just arms. Why the term "arms" because in the 18th century the term "arms" was given to mean any type of weapon. In todays terms "arms" should mean the same thing. If as a law abiding citizen of the United States of America desire to lawfully own a firearm, be it a muzzle loading antique used for show or a fully automatic assault rifle, then as long as I legally own it and legally use it then there should be no prohibition on it. Invariably those that mirror my thoughts get labled as "gun nuts" or "anti-government". Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an advocate for safe and legal gun ownership for all citizens. I believe that it is my responsibility to protect myself, my family, and my government and that I should not rely on someone else for that protection.

On anther note I notice that yourself and I both use the terms "rights" and "citizens" in the same sentence. I myself believe that the only persons who are "entitled" to the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are; U.S. citizens and legal guests of the United States. I believe that "our" rights should not be transferred to non-citizens whether they be illegal aliens or combatants against America. You are correct in stating that our 4th and 5th rights are being trampled on. The government should not be allowed to listen in on my conversations without good cause and a legal warrant. I have nothing to hide but I have everything to loose. For those who don't believe me read 1984 by George Orwell, and get back to me. As far as non citizens, i.e. illegal aliens and combatants our Constitution should not afford them the same rights as it does a citizen.

[scfire86]

It was private industry that gave us our wealth, not government.

I always laugh outrageously at comments like this.

You're truly naive to believe that public investment in the form of health, education, infrastructure, or security have not had a positive impact on development of the US as a superpower.

[scfire86]

I've nothing to hide. Go ahead. Look all you want. The ones who are afraid are the ones with something to hide.

This is exactly the same type of activity we (the US) would criticize the KGB for performing on their citizens.

I guess my belief in the Constitution goes beyond yours.

[BryanLoader]

Sorry Scarecrow, you're wrong a bit here. the arctic circle lays at 66 degrees 33 mins and there is no oil coming out of there by Canada. Some companies like HBOG, Dome Petroleum and PetroCanada drilled there and found oil alright, but its still there because its too hard and expensive to get south. The Noggies and the Cloggies are nowhere near drilling inside the arctic circle and while Russia has done a bit, its still in the ground too. Drilling in the wildlife refuge may make a difference in a long term outlook, but it would be 20 years before any appreciable difference would be felt in the lower 48. Plain and simple is there needs to be a lot more effort put into an alternative energy source and it sure as heck won't be wind or bio fuels.

Did you know that recent research shows that 20% of the worlds undiscovered oil reserves lie above the arctic circle. Although I ask the question, How do they know how much is there if it is undiscovered?
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...ic-oil-gusher/
Did you also know that Russia, Canada, and the Netherlands are already tapping into that pool of oil? Did you also know that drilling in ANWR will allow the US to use the already bought and paid for Alaska oil pipeline?



So she is just like they are...No there is leadership.. It just sickens me to see these legislators acting like a bunch of elementary school kids on the playground. The young lady needs to grow and stop acting like a 10 year old.



I'm glad you agree, that was said somewhat tongue in cheek. Seems people forget that the current rise in fuel prices started in Bill Clinton's last 3 years as president. The trend has simply continued throughout the Bush years. During that time none of our elected officials have done anything to change it. Difference now is the Republicans have been trying to come up with solutions and do something, their opponents are just walking away. They all make me laugh. If one side says the sky is green the other will say the sky is red. In the end both are wrong and we the people take it in the shorts

[jasper45]

What's even funnier is that righties always **** and moan on how their tax dollars are being spent on issues they don't like, but now it should be okay for my tax dollars to be spent on something I don't like.

No ****ing and moaning here, except for consistency. I'm all for giving tax breaks, etc... to bring movies and production into an area, but I'm also for providing the tax climate to keep regular companies here.
I'm guessing you don't have that issue in Southern California, but it is a HUGE issue here. Corporations are leaving this area and this state in droves, and they're doing it entirely because of the tax-climate.

People love to bitch about jobs leaving this country, yet the first move is to call for more taxes on companies, etc... especially from the Democrats, unless it's a company that falls under a typically left-wing industry such as movie production.

You don't think so? Do a little research on this area. We just lost a brewery that was key to the foundation of this city, and we lost it because government here would not budge on giving them a tax break. On the flip side, we have created state laws specific to the benefit of movie making, which has actually brought some movies into the state, including a Depp movie.

Tax breaks for companies work.

I'm sure you'll be just as happy with the infringements of the 4th Ammendment (such as warrantless wiretapping) when a Dem is in the White House.

If there is Democrat in office, and they're able to convince me they're keeping us safe and preventing future attacks, and innocent people aren't being dragged out of their homes, and we still have free elections, and there are no tanks in the streets, and we can still criticize our government with no repercussions, then no problem.
In other words, if it's just like it is now, then they're doing something right.

[ThNozzleman]

Between the state and federal government there is 80 cents a gallon in taxes.

Now, just how do you figure that?

[ThNozzleman]

Yes, Americans only started driving gas guzzling SUVs in the last 7 years, before Bush took office they weren't even invented yet.

Eh? Surely you're not going to sit there and state that liberal policies and ideology promote SUV's and "gas guzzlers" are you?

And yes, it was Bush's lack of oversight into how much money the OIL companies are allowed to make per gallon of gas that has led to this. We should take over the oil companies and have our politicians run them, and dictate they should only make enough money per gallon of gas to pay employees was they need to live, and only pay investors the same return on investment they would have received by buying Government Saving Bonds.

Conservative/republican policies and ideas concerning deregulation and the "free market" are well known. It's a complete scam on the American people, and always has been. I mean, the poor oil companies are just struggling to survive in these hard times.

My Capt at work tells of driving off from pumps because gas was too high, at 69¢ a gallon. You're making fun of a politician who failed to have an accurate crystal ball. Who are you, Nostradamus?

A crystal ball?? What the hell are you talking about? Chimpy McFlightsuit just doesn't give a damn. Nearly every economist and expert analyst in the nation was predicting this mess for years, while King George fiddled away.

I've nothing to hide. Go ahead. Look all you want. The ones who are afraid are the ones with something to hide.

The ones snooping will be the ones determining who has what to hide.
You are truly a fool to hold such an ignorant notion.