i'm not quite sure of the quality of work we will get by forcing a local pavement opperation to hire and use some of PEBO's "peace corp" to produce the roads in my town. right now, i can pay the local asphalt company to come out and pave my dealership's parking lot and i will pay them and it will be done. when PEBO and his "job corp" are involved, i'll end up either paying more, or paying for shoddier work because he tells the local asphalt company who they can hire to do the job! in theory this may be appealing but in practice, all it is doing is eliminating a skilled workforce and exchanging it with a pool of people that haven't the skills or the gumption to have acquired them.

i'm hoping that we are all aware of the govt's objectives in putting several bills together to pass one of them. you know, throwing in better school lunches with an energy plan, or somehow piggybacking any non-like item with another one to get MORE people to "TAKE" the origional plan..... that is how i see the gestapo ideas that PEBO has. mask a police force to constrain the citizenry with the "jobs for everyone" slogan and the sheep will give up even more of their liberties. this IS dangerous.

please, nobody assume that i have been thrilled with the job that W has done. i am not one of these people that is just ranting and raving about "my" guy not getting in! regardless of the face, name, party offiliation, age, creed or anyother factor... i am scared shi*less about anything that tips our country even further into communism. PEBO is the vehicle that will transport us DIRECTLY to this! when our markets are not only regulated, but partially owned by the govt we have SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM. when we have a leader that wishes to madate the use of the labors of the unskilled over those that are trained and diligent in their efforts... we have SOCIALISM. when we have a leader that proposes to make the "benefits" that many of us have educated ourselves to no end to be able to acheive, available in poorer quality to everyone as "rights" we have SOCIALISM. when we have a proposed internal police force reporting only to PEBO, regardless of the "attatchments" in the speech, we have armed forces policing/patroling our citizenry! GESTAPO! if we are ignorant enough to not recognize this slippery slope right away, we may never be wishing anyone, christian or otherwise, a Merry Christmas again!

Originally Posted by Judge

Meanwhile G.W. openly violated the posse commitatus act by assigning actuve duty mitlitary to internal domestic security tasks and not one peep. How odd.

Not so fast there Judge. You should read your own references.

The US military will have around 20,000 uniformed personnel in this role in the United States by 2011, specifically trained and equipped to assist state and local government, respond to major disasters, terrorist attack, other major public emergencies.[6] This shift in strategy is a result of recommendations by Congress and outside experts.[6]

That would be the democrat congress I believe. Obama wants to triple the size of this force.

what really grinds my gears is other cultures in america can sing there Hanukkah songs, and get away with it, or wtv they believe, but noooooo we can't even sing a freaking christmas song with santa or jesus.....but yet again not being racial, but we can also sing Some middle eastern christmas song and get away with it. It just doesn't make any since at all. But luckily i don't have to deal with that in Texas.....move to the great state of Texas, heck dude we still have prayer groups after school, and everything.

I believe it's still called the Republic of Texas? If so, good for you in hanging on to the type of government our country was founded on.

Just for more controversy, our government and constitution was never intended to protect the rights of all minorities, or even to assure the voice of minority groups. It was intended to represent the majority, which is why we vote majority rules.

good point T.O.M.

Whoops back to High School civics class for you guys. Our system of Government has many protections for it's minority members. It is not a majority rules system, it is a representative government. It has different branches to serve as checks and balances. By design, the system provides means so that the majority cannot take rights away from a minority. The Electoral College can elect a President who did not win the popular vote. The minority Party in Congress can block legislation, even though that legislation has a greater than 50% vote of the members. Even a proposition that receives a majority vote of the people may be set aside if it is deemed to deny rights to a minority group. There are many examples of this, including some that are getting headlines right now. We are absolutly not a majority rules country.

As you have mentioned, you can not take rights away from people, but the Majority always rules unless it infringes upon those rights as set forth by our founding fathers with checks and balances. So, majority does rule.
Here on the left coast, as you know, we have the ballot system, kinda the peoples direct democratic style government.
We are a representative government (not a true democracy, where each individual would vote on everything), but the elected are to do the will of the people. Ya don't see that much often anymore.

I think Miss Piggy is H O T ..............bananadogg

Originally Posted by MikeC3D

I think Miss Piggy is H O T ..............bananadogg

Girls and bacon... do you need anything else?

Originally Posted by jaguar bone

ANYTHING IN RELATION TO OUR WESTERN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. "

You mean, your beliefs. To use "our" and refer to the general populous is rather close minded. In all honestly. I don't maintain ANY religious beliefs, and get rather irratated when people tell me I should and feel the need to inject theirs. Do I celebrate Christmas, I sure do, but not for the same reason that you may. Do I celebrate Easter, I sure do, but not for the same reason you may. Do I get offended if someone sings a traditional Christmas song, Hannukah song, or other religious holiday song, hell no. Sing what ever you like. As long as you arent calling me a scumbag for not believing, I could care less. When people make infrences and judgements based on what they think others do or dont believe, that bothers me. And unfortunately, I have found that many a time, such offenders come from the far right, or far left of the spectrum and are hell bent on pushing their views. I love to ask questions and learn about other peoples belief systems. I have taken many a general education class in college on different religions just to learn why people believe what they do. I feel that I can look at any religion subjectively that way and learn about it un-inhibited. Unfortunately, for many people of faith (any faith), their beliefs don't allow them to be at all subjective and learn about other people and what they believe, and why they believe. I find that the most interesting myself. What really knocks people socks off is if you can get them to read something like the Koran in a purely academic manner, and they see the same stories and information popping up between their version of the Bible and the Koran. The hard part is getting them to actually look at it!

Infidel. Lol

Tank--people are upset because they are not allowed to show/say their beliefs/rights, while others are able to exercise theirs.
Case in point, the atheist that did not want his daughter to recite "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. He was forcing his atheist beliefs on every child in that class so she did not have to say God. Point being, she never was forced to say it and could have just decided to drop that from her recitement. Now, even though the majority wanted it they can no longer say "under God".

Originally Posted by RTK

Tank--people are upset because they are not allowed to show/say their beliefs/rights, while others are able to exercise theirs.
Case in point, the atheist that did not want his daughter to recite "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. He was forcing his atheist beliefs on every child in that class so she did not have to say God. Point being, she never was forced to say it and could have just decided to drop that from her recitement. Now, even though the majority wanted it they can no longer say "under God".

I hear ya. Also, it may have been the idea that the majority accepted it just didnt care either way like I wouldnt have cared. If recite the Pledge if Allegiance, I say it because those are the words to it. It doesnt offend me. Like i said before, I feel that a lot of times, we only hear from the far right or the far left on issues (case and point this person wanting to restrict everyone else because of what she believes). Those that want to get their point across are always the ones to speak. The rest of us just hang out not really saying much unless something goes off the deepend.

Originally Posted by 66stang

Infidel. Lol

LOL. Anytime I hear that word, I can only think of this from now on....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go