Oh, I thought this was another thread on spawn killing. My bad. Anyway, here are my thoughts:

Spawnkilling - For

Camping - For

Dropping bomb on bomb the base and carrier - For

Sincerely,

Your Enemy

[DD]Big C wrote: Just to see some steam coming off people's ears-

Obama has signed things like NDAA into law, among other unconstitutional things. Bush signed the patriot act which violated the 6th amendment. Of course, almost all of congress, excluding one, voted for at least one of these.

I think its about time we bring the treason charges. There is more than enough evidence for convictions. The only question is who will try them? Congress is supposed to try the president in an impeachment, but I think that's a conflict of interests. It would have to be intelligent people who wont let opinions get in the way... The other question is what to do afterward. With the way the world has changed since 1776, no doubt we need an new or at least revised system.

I think the best thing to do would be to revert back to something like the articles of confederation, except the bill of rights are still there, along with maybe a few other amendments that have seen themselves necessary in the last few decades. The basic idea would be people have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't directly harm another person.

The states would decide their own government, essentially all 50 would have different governments, and if one became undesirable for a citizen, they could move freely.

Any thoughts?

C you are a very wise man. And as much as id like to shoot holes in your idea, i cant because you hit the nail on the head. America is long overdue for an overhaul of the govenment system. It all really (in my opinion) boils down to our presidents, from both parties, trying to push the agenda of New World Order to a point that it becomes one world, one government, one economy. Now im sure that to some this might sound like the holy grail solution to everyone's problems around the world. But the truth of the matter is exactly the opposite. Lets assume for a second that NWO succeeds and the world becomes one giant meganation, with one uniform currency. The government and police forces necessary to manage such a system would be so overwhelmingly large that deterioration into a police state would seem almost inevitable, especially with the worldwide political corruption that already exists. I do agree that america needs
to reinvent itself before it can move forward. In fact a reinvention back to a time when you just dealt with things like second hand smoke and man made environmental disasters wouldnt entirely be a bad thing, and here's why: back then you could do and say things that you cant do or say in america anymore. It started with political correctness, and now, too many people are afraid to say anything that may be taken offensively. There is a fine line between anarchy and a police state, and while certain issues need to be addressed in a responsible manner, there is no doubt in my mind that it should not be any part of the government that brings politicians to trial or impeaches the president, it should be the people. We impeached bill clinton for frisky behavior in the white house but we didn't impeach bush or obama for clearly treasonous behavior. My conclusion? Either the american people are blind or they just dont want to get involved when the situation becomes gravely serious. Would i like to be part of the solution? Absolutely. Will i be part of the solution? Probably not. Why? Because im too much like agent gibbs on ncis. I break too many rules to get the job done to be seen as much more than a means to an end and a potential liability. Thats my two cents.

[WS]HD wrote:

[DD]Big C wrote: Just to see some steam coming off people's ears-

Obama has signed things like NDAA into law, among other unconstitutional things. Bush signed the patriot act which violated the 6th amendment. Of course, almost all of congress, excluding one, voted for at least one of these.

I think its about time we bring the treason charges. There is more than enough evidence for convictions. The only question is who will try them? Congress is supposed to try the president in an impeachment, but I think that's a conflict of interests. It would have to be intelligent people who wont let opinions get in the way... The other question is what to do afterward. With the way the world has changed since 1776, no doubt we need an new or at least revised system.

I think the best thing to do would be to revert back to something like the articles of confederation, except the bill of rights are still there, along with maybe a few other amendments that have seen themselves necessary in the last few decades. The basic idea would be people have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't directly harm another person.

The states would decide their own government, essentially all 50 would have different governments, and if one became undesirable for a citizen, they could move freely.

Any thoughts?

C you are a very wise man. And as much as id like to shoot holes in your idea, i cant because you hit the nail on the head. America is long overdue for an overhaul of the govenment system. It all really (in my opinion) boils down to our presidents, from both parties, trying to push the agenda of New World Order to a point that it becomes one world, one government, one economy. Now im sure that to some this might sound like the holy grail solution to everyone's problems around the world. But the truth of the matter is exactly the opposite. Lets assume for a second that NWO succeeds and the world becomes one giant meganation, with one uniform currency. The government and police forces necessary to manage such a system would be so overwhelmingly large that deterioration into a police state would seem almost inevitable, especially with the worldwide political corruption that already exists. I do agree that america needs
to reinvent itself before it can move forward. In fact a reinvention back to a time when you just dealt with things like second hand smoke and man made environmental disasters wouldnt entirely be a bad thing, and here's why: back then you could do and say things that you cant do or say in america anymore. It started with political correctness, and now, too many people are afraid to say anything that may be taken offensively. There is a fine line between anarchy and a police state, and while certain issues need to be addressed in a responsible manner, there is no doubt in my mind that it should not be any part of the government that brings politicians to trial or impeaches the president, it should be the people. We impeached bill clinton for frisky behavior in the white house but we didn't impeach bush or obama for clearly treasonous behavior. My conclusion? Either the american people are blind or they just dont want to get involved when the situation becomes gravely serious. Would i like to be part of the solution? Absolutely. Will i be part of the solution? Probably not. Why? Because im too much like agent gibbs on ncis. I break too many rules to get the job done to be seen as much more than a means to an end and a potential liability. Thats my two cents.

Not the NWO!!! I would hate to see the union dissolve into a fragmented bunch of confedarate states. We tried that and the central government was too weak. What happens to interstate commerce disputes? What happens to unbalanced aquifer usage when the aquifer resides in 2 or more states? What happens if South Carolina gets invaded? Does Texas help? What if South Carolina chooses not to maintain an army, should we have to defend them? No, I prefer the Republic! The Russians tried it, and there country splintered apart. The only problem in America is voter apathy. The NWO is a fantasy. The second biggest issue facing us is a self imposed isolation from a dissenting voice. People don't read or watch news that they disagree with. Instead they seek news that validates their belief. I will paste a link that is excellent and enlightening. It explains how Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc... customize our information flow to our personal preference. For example, I work with some very conservative people. They talk about the President and his policies as if he is some usurper. The fact is that the President won the popular and electoral college vote. The majority of Americans THAT VOTED wanted him not the other guy. So here, check out this link about how we are brainwashing ourselves.
www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

I experimented during the election cycle. My FB page was getting blown up by ads from Romney and Obama. I "liked" both of them, no more adds. The filter did not know what to do. It was interesting.

We can talk about anything on here right? Ok then, How come when the lady next door mows her yard my wife gets mad as hell? At ME! I mean all I'm doing is sitting out front getting some sun playing with binoculars and my camera with the telephoto lens....
I can't help it if she cuts her grass in the nude anymore than I could help it that she was Play Boys miss July 2002. I'm not watching her im just watching the birds and such. Really....





Ok she's not nude but with my old eyes I can't tell where the G string ends or begains

Dr Dave wrote: We can talk about anything on here right? Ok then, How come when the lady next door mows her yard my wife gets mad as hell? At ME! I mean all I'm doing is sitting out front getting some sun playing with binoculars and my camera with the telephoto lens....
I can't help it if she cuts her grass in the nude anymore than I could help it that she was Play Boys miss July 2002. I'm not watching her im just watching the birds and such. Really....





Ok she's not nude but with my old eyes I can't tell where the G string ends or begains

You need to check your binooulars. That's a man, man! All though he does have some C cups.

A worldwide law to play dogfight should be created!

onsekone wrote: I have to dissagree about rule 5. I don't know any other phenomenon that has affected to our culture and civilization more than religion.

I totally agree with rule 5.
But it is of no importance as i will not participate.!

Good luck !

Ps : apologies to anybody i hurt

TX LAWMAN wrote:

Dr Dave wrote: We can talk about anything on here right? Ok then, How come when the lady next door mows her yard my wife gets mad as hell? At ME! I mean all I'm doing is sitting out front getting some sun playing with binoculars and my camera with the telephoto lens....
I can't help it if she cuts her grass in the nude anymore than I could help it that she was Play Boys miss July 2002. I'm not watching her im just watching the birds and such. Really....





Ok she's not nude but with my old eyes I can't tell where the G string ends or begains

You need to check your binooulars. That's a man, man! All though he does have some C cups.

Those look more like D cups to me

I think the electoral college system needs to be done away with entirely.. and just the popular vote counts.. that way you KNOW your vote counts! Maybe then we would have a greater turnout of voters rather than the pathetic percentages of people who actually take the time to vote.. the apathy of American citizens is shameful.. too many men & women died forming & protecting this great nation so that all Americans would have the right & privilege to hold the ultimate power over our government and be able to vote the politicians in or out of office. As a wise man once said, "If you don't vote you don't have the right to bitch about the government."
One thing I do know, is that if our founding fathers could see the state that our country is in today they would roll over in their graves...

Zebra, there's a logic to that and it comes up often. We are a democracy, so why don't we elect the one federal executive by popular vote?

From the framer's point of view, this was a compromise to gain support of less populous states for the union they wanted to form. The idea is that, basically, it is the states that vote in the President. The argument, of course, was that the voice of the less populous Southern states (in the 1780's, mind you...) would not be drowned out by those wacky New Englanders and North Coasters (New York and PA). By population alone, they would have dominated the choices for our earliest chief executives. You might have kissed Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, etc. etc. etc. goodbye...they were our original Southern presidents.

The argument is still made today, obviously. In modern terms its often suggested that if we went to a purely popular vote, States like Maine, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Alaska, Hawaii, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Idaho, N. Dakota, S. Dakota (starting to see a pattern here??) would NEVER see a presidential candidate. Campaigns would focus their limited resources to win, meaning they would concentrate only on the most populous states and generally ignore those with less dense populations.

So, in one sense, you're absolutely correct. How, in a democracy, can we justifiably weight votes by state rather than sticking to the principle of one person, one vote. But, the counter argument, as twisted and complicated as it makes Presidential politics, has continued to win out after all this time. No guarantees, of course, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to change...Good points, though.

@ ZebraUp

Just imagine the nightmare of a recount!

I agree but the founding fathers would turn in their grave if the electoral college was done away with. I believe the logic that we are a democratic republic. The founding fathers knew that the minority views must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. America is not a majority view system but is of, by and for the people as a whole which is beyond the majority. For the founding fathers want to protect from potentially wrong policies inacted by the majority.

Democratic republic and three branches and balance of powers. Man those founding fathers were amazingly smart.

btschuman wrote: Zebra, there's a logic to that and it comes up often. We are a democracy, so why don't we elect the one federal executive by popular vote?

From the framer's point of view, this was a compromise to gain support of less populous states for the union they wanted to form. The idea is that, basically, it is the states that vote in the President. The argument, of course, was that the voice of the less populous Southern states (in the 1780's, mind you...) would not be drowned out by those wacky New Englanders and North Coasters (New York and PA). By population alone, they would have dominated the choices for our earliest chief executives. You might have kissed Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, etc. etc. etc. goodbye...they were our original Southern presidents.

The argument is still made today, obviously. In modern terms its often suggested that if we went to a purely popular vote, States like Maine, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Alaska, Hawaii, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Idaho, N. Dakota, S. Dakota (starting to see a pattern here??) would NEVER see a presidential candidate. Campaigns would focus their limited resources to win, meaning they would concentrate only on the most populous states and generally ignore those with less dense populations.

So, in one sense, you're absolutely correct. How, in a democracy, can we justifiably weight votes by state rather than sticking to the principle of one person, one vote. But, the counter argument, as twisted and complicated as it makes Presidential politics, has continued to win out after all this time. No guarantees, of course, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to change...Good points, though.

Sorry but i must attempt to shoot some holes in this response. The answer to doing away with the electoral college and going with the popular vote goes a little something like this: requiring candidates to campaign in every state. You cant tell me that with todays mass media distribution that it wouldnt work. The popular vote is just that: the person that the overall majority say is the best choice to lead the country. It also provides incentive for states with lower populations to find ways of increasing their population density by among other things doing a certain something like rabbits. Or increasing their tourism to attract more people to move there etc. regardless, not
Everyone is going to be pleased with the results. But for the popular vote to succeed, people from every state would have to keep in mind that its not about the politician your state nominated. Its about choosing the person best qualified to lead the people of this country into a new age of peace and prosperity. Greed is the real enemy these days. The greed of politicians who dont care about the issues, instead only caring that they keep getting richer and maintain their power. The greed of the corporations, banks, lobbyists and special interest groups that fund their campaigns. These are dark times. Dark times call for two things. Dramatic action and one hell of a bright light.

Again. You are attempting to do away with what the founding fathers believed strongly.

So my answer and there is no holes in bstrachen a comment.

We are not the united america. But the united STATES of america

I absolutely see no problem with the electoral college. Founding fathers. Balance of powers checks and balances.

doughens wrote: Again. You are attempting to do away with what the founding fathers believed strongly.

So my answer and there is no holes in bstrachen a comment.

We are not the united america. But the united STATES of america

I absolutely see no problem with the electoral college. Founding fathers. Balance of powers checks and balances.

just saying that it's what the founding fathers wanted or did doesn't make it right for today. Many of them owned slaves, but it's not something any of us would consider doing today. Times change, social and political norms change, and if they system doesn't change with them you get left behind in a state of stagnation.

I love the current Republic system. It is elegant for lack of a better word. We popularly elect the House of Representatives based on population distribution. Thus, more populous states have more representatives. We popularly elect a senate where each state receives the same number of senators. This is such a great counterbalance to population density based democracy. Every law must clear both houses. The electors are selected in state conventions, some of which require the electors to support party candidates or the popular vote, while some are free to act as they see fit. Despite this, in 57 presidential elections, only 4 times has the loser of the popular vote been elected president. John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote and electoral vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824. However, Jackson failed to win enough electors to be named president. Congress voted John Quincy Adams into office. Rutherford Hayes lost the popular vote and won in 1876, Benjamin Harrison did in 1888, and George W. Bush did in 2000. Thus in 93% (53 out of 57)of elections the winner carries both the popular vote and the electoral college. To me, this just does not seem broken. I also think that a presidential, lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court (even after FDR expanded the court to 9 Justices) is the perfect counterbalance to legislative and executive powers. Historically, pure democracies (direct democracies) were short lived, weak, and somewhat unstable. Athens did manage a run from around 595BC to 322BC. Compare that to the Roman Republic that ran from 509 BC to 44 BC with the diefication of Julius Ceasar. The Roman Empire survived until the death of its last emperor in 475 AD still clinging to a modified form of a republican government. I think the Republican system insulates us from the "flavor of the month" passions that drive elections. Hypothetically, suppose a candidate was pure Pro-Life/ Pro Choice (your pick). They were rock solid there, but they had no clue on economic, domestic, or foreign policy. They are carried into office by their Pro-Life/ Pro Choice belief. Don't we need protections from their shortcomings? That is what the Constitution provides.

I am tired of hearing alleged patriots advocate the destruction of the Union because their candidate lost or they disagree with the laws Congress has passed, or the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. I understand in 2000 that the other side was guilty of the same behavior. I did not serve in the armed forces as many have, but my oath of office required me to swear that I will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." Further, my spiritual beliefs require me to honor the government:

Romans 13:1-7 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Sorry for the rant. America is not declining. Our economic struggles are mirrored by virtually every other industrial nation. China's false housing market bubble is about to pop (government lending at inflated rates for government buying). Our debt is still primarily owed to ourselves. What will cause the country to fail is the deliberate obstruction of the government's ability to function. This is the same tactics the Nazi Party used to force Hitler's appointment to Chancellor. At any rate, I feel better. Talk amongst yourselves...

Thank you all for your contribution to this thread. I appreciate every one of your responses, and I think there is and will continue to be much to be learned here. It's great to be able to read all of the opposing points of view written so thoroughly.

I likes it!

Tex, I see the real "decline" as being the general lack of personal responsibility that anyone is willing to accept for their own actions, a gross abuse of the legal system for personal financial gain, a government that wants to regulate every facet of people's lives, and a tax system that is completely out of control. I do believe that American society is in decline, but those are my primary reasons for believing so.

woospy wrote:

onsekone wrote: I have to dissagree about rule 5. I don't know any other phenomenon that has affected to our culture and civilization more than religion.

I totally agree with rule 5.
But it is of no importance as i will not participate.!

Good luck !

Ps : apologies to anybody i hurt

onsekone wrote:

woospy wrote:

onsekone wrote: I have to dissagree about rule 5. I don't know any other phenomenon that has affected to our culture and civilization more than religion.

I totally agree with rule 5.
But it is of no importance as i will not participate.!

Good luck !

Ps : apologies to anybody i hurt

No !

Against Jean-Paul II i cannot compete (he was good on a football field as i was told)

Apologies again for my past words Onsekone

Here's a debate topic for you: We hear the saber-rattling about the need to remember and stick to what the founding fathers wanted.

Is that actually a sound argument for or against anything?

Don't get me wrong: I am an admirer of what they gave us, and the effort it took to cobble together a document that 13 willful colonies would agree to. I'm just curious as to how anyone can divine in today's world what they could possibly have approved or disapproved of.

Theirs' was a world that lacked cars, AIDS, telephones, good roads, penicillin, the internet, airplanes, moon missions or NASA, a department of agriculture, sophisticated personal weaponry, intercontinental flight, television (broadcast or cable), federal taxes, public education, public health efforts, the Ebola virus, UBL, or even electric generation. In their world, the right to vote could be limited to whether or not you were a member of a church, owned land, paid taxes, had testicles, or were of a particular skin color. In their world, disease and illiteracy were rampant, communications sucked, they could actually justify the existence of slavery as a legal institution in our system.

What they did give us WAS a system that could adapt to change. Yes, we can amend the Constitution (not a very common event...), Congress can pass and Presidents can sign laws, and laws can be interpreted by the Courts, Congress, the Bureaucracy, Presidents, and even the State officials.

It raises the question: Just because the system changes to something the founding fathers did not foresee, would not have liked, might have not understood, does that make it wrong? So long as the basic framework of our democratic republic remains intact (that is, the structure, powers, nature and method of selecting public officials, etc.) if that self-same system is moved to change by events, public pressure, elections, interpretations, or moral imperatives, is that somehow a threat to our political essence?

I'd be interested in DF's thoughts. But, please stick to the original rules. This is about good reason and argument, not invective or direct personal attack.

At the same time, we should be careful to adjust while not inadvertently destroying something fundamental that the founders got right, that is core to the success of the country (in this case, these United States). I think that's the basic argument that constitutionalists advocate, not some blind following of everything 18th century.

That fine line makes the judgment highly subjective!

There, I've managed to say something while not saying anything concrete. And relatively brief, for me.

Manfred

woospy wrote:

onsekone wrote:

woospy wrote:

onsekone wrote: I have to dissagree about rule 5. I don't know any other phenomenon that has affected to our culture and civilization more than religion.

I totally agree with rule 5.
But it is of no importance as i will not participate.!

Good luck !

Ps : apologies to anybody i hurt

No !

Against Jean-Paul II i cannot compete (he was good on a football field as i was told)

Apologies again for my past words Onsekone

We're cool. Did you know Jorge Mario Bergoglio used to work as porter of night club in Buenos Aires? Quite a career development.

Just saying

@ Onsekone

I did not know thanks to you.

Better career than mine indeed !

But if I had its respectfull ideas and exigences in life... i should have stay at the door with him !...

Have to look and do not have the right to touch ... well too hard for me !

Just joke - no offense

WOOOOPS : I made a rare double infraction to rule 5 in the same post !

First of all i love that picture of the pope. It makes him look like he's doing a cover of lamb of god's "now you've got something to die for" lol. Secondly, just to be a pain in everyone's collective rear ends I'd like to point out the totally irrelevant fact that "sophisticated personal weaponry" to the founding fathers would have been sabers, and black powder rifles and pistols. While primitive to us today these weapons were state of the art back then and would have been considered highly sophisticated. Like i said. Totally irrelevant lol. As we move forward however, the question becomes how do we adapt what the founding fathers built to effectively work for another 200 plus years into the future? Its not really about us anymore, its about the future generations yet to be born who will have to live with the consequences of our decisions and actions. Just a thought guys.

[WS]HD wrote: First of all i love that picture of the pope. It makes him look like he's doing a cover of lamb of god's "now you've got something to die for" lol. Secondly, just to be a pain in everyone's collective rear ends I'd like to point out the totally irrelevant fact that "sophisticated personal weaponry" to the founding fathers would have been sabers, and black powder rifles and pistols. While primitive to us today these weapons were state of the art back then and would have been considered highly sophisticated. Like i said. Totally irrelevant lol. As we move forward however, the question becomes how do we adapt what the founding fathers built to effectively work for another 200 plus years into the future? Its not really about us anymore, its about the future generations yet to be born who will have to live with the consequences of our decisions and actions. Just a thought guys.

There is nothing in there about "personal weapons". The word is arms. To me that includes pretty much all weapons of war. With that said I don't necessarily think my neighbor outta have a nuke, but I think it allows for a LOT more than what we are currently "allowed". As far as the musket argument, they had artillery of all shapes and sizes, explosives, and so on. It's convienient to think they had no conception of the effectiveness of a modern firearm, but that doesn't hold water. Simple question: if you had to take your chances, which would you prefer? A 9mm semi automatic pistol with an 18 round clip, or a cannon loaded with grapeshot? I'll risk the 9mm anyday.

Beatea, good question, and one I'm going to have to think about. I do think the bill of rights is timeless though. Maybe not the $20 amount in amendment 7, but the general premise of it applies too.

I think the founders, although they weren't able to see the future, did a brilliant job of studying the past and why so many civilizations had failed. I feel that although technology and communication have improved a lot, a lot of the basic scenarios that any society encounters is usually a replay of something that has happened before. Very little is unprecedented when you look at the big picture of humans interacting with other humans.

Does that make any sense?

btschuman wrote: Here's a debate topic for you: We hear the saber-rattling about the need to remember and stick to what the founding fathers wanted.

Is that actually a sound argument for or against anything?

Don't get me wrong: I am an admirer of what they gave us, and the effort it took to cobble together a document that 13 willful colonies would agree to. I'm just curious as to how anyone can divine in today's world what they could possibly have approved or disapproved of.

Theirs' was a world that lacked cars, AIDS, telephones, good roads, penicillin, the internet, airplanes, moon missions or NASA, a department of agriculture, sophisticated personal weaponry, intercontinental flight, television (broadcast or cable), federal taxes, public education, public health efforts, the Ebola virus, UBL, or even electric generation. In their world, the right to vote could be limited to whether or not you were a member of a church, owned land, paid taxes, had testicles, or were of a particular skin color. In their world, disease and illiteracy were rampant, communications sucked, they could actually justify the existence of slavery as a legal institution in our system.

What they did give us WAS a system that could adapt to change. Yes, we can amend the Constitution (not a very common event...), Congress can pass and Presidents can sign laws, and laws can be interpreted by the Courts, Congress, the Bureaucracy, Presidents, and even the State officials.

It raises the question: Just because the system changes to something the founding fathers did not foresee, would not have liked, might have not understood, does that make it wrong? So long as the basic framework of our democratic republic remains intact (that is, the structure, powers, nature and method of selecting public officials, etc.) if that self-same system is moved to change by events, public pressure, elections, interpretations, or moral imperatives, is that somehow a threat to our political essence?

I'd be interested in DF's thoughts. But, please stick to the original rules. This is about good reason and argument, not invective or direct personal attack.

Sorry guys i thought i hit quote earlier, this was what i was responding to. Hope that clears up any confusion or doubts about my intelligence and for the record guys, i dont presume to have any of the answers, so if i come across as a radical with my opinions, its only because im frustrated and fed up with watching america fall apart. The best and most prosperous time ive seen in america during my life was during the clinton administration. I was just old enough to start working during the last couple years of his second term and i remember having no trouble finding work. That may have been because of my age at the time, managers could train me the way they wanted without having to worry about me having bad habits and now its so much more difficult to find work, let alone keep that work. I'd be more than happy to see america return to a state where there are more jobs available than there are people to fill those jobs.

No doubts at all as to your intelligence... Hence the attack the argument, not the person making it rule. None of us have all of the answers (although I'm sure that some believe they do more than the rest of us ). This is all fun for me. It's not for fun on election day, but discussing it all here is just for entertainment and education.

Jacklpe, don't get me wrong. I fully agree with the brilliance of the document for so many more reasons than anyone here would care to read. Something to think about with the Bill of Rights, though. Most of the founders felt these first 12 amendments (only 10 made it in at the time) were even needed. Their feeling was that the Constitution generally addressed each and every one of these issues already.

The resistance to that view came from many of the states that felt that these personal liberties (or, civil liberties, if you prefer) should be detailed. The New Hampshire Constitution started out with more than 50, now they're over 100, I think. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, S. Carolina, Georgia also had similar views for their state document...that the "Bills of Rights" were essential protections. In the end, we wind up with the original 10, but now have 27, each with the legal strength of the original 10.

I guess my point is, even those protections have been "adjusted" with time. Free speech has seen many limits and expansions over time. We have freedom of religion, but you can't use your religion as an excuse to harm others or to kill the family dog as a sacrifice (definitely not cool.) Much of the argument that led to the Civil War came from different views of the 10th Amendment. A five-year bloodbath, the Supremacy Clause that gives federal law power over state law, and broader interpretation of the Necesssary and Proper Clauses, have all contributed to the Federal/State relationship we have today.

This history kinda defies the notion that the original Bill of Rights was perfect or unchangeable. Does the fact that all these things have altered the original vision make them wrong? And, should we have not added the following 17 amendments because they weren't conceived by the founders. Or, is this simply a reflection of preference (take your pick: financial, political, religious, moral, personal preferences) in a democratic republic?

Just a thought...