Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Ford Motor Co. Message Board

  • suk_chons_dong suk_chons_dong Jul 4, 2004 4:03 PM Flag

    Don't see Farenheit 9/11 It's an evil

    documentary. Michael Moore is an evil man. God will strike Michael Moore dead for what he said about a christian president.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You: "If a U.S. citizen takes up arms against the nation, or acts in a malicious way against the country, doesn't that person lose his/her citizenship? And why aren't we charging these people with treason? (This goes back to Johnny bin Walker, too.)"

      No, you don't lose your citizenship. But you can be tried for treason.

      My guess is that Walker was not tried for treason because the evidentiary proof is too difficult. As the Constitution says:

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

      It's actually pretty difficult to get two witnesses to testify in open court to an intentionally treasonous act, and almost nobody would ever confess it. So for administrative convenience it's just easier to try Walker for some lesser offense.

    • Suspicion isn't enough to take away a person's Constitutional rights, I agree, but it is enough to hold a person. Holding the person indefinitely is another thing...

      I agree the government isn't free from error, but isn't there something to be said for being 'safe, not sorry'?

      That being said, it is imperative that the rights of each U.S. citizen are upheld. As to the enemy combatants, that's another thing. They aren't guaranteed the same freedoms we have under the Constitution.

      Which brings me to another thing... If a U.S. citizen takes up arms against the nation, or acts in a malicious way against the country, doesn't that person lose his/her citizenship? And why aren't we charging these people with treason? (This goes back to Johnny bin Walker, too.)

    • You: "Touche. But would the government hold him if they didn't suspect him of doing anything?"

      Well, first off I'd say that mere suspicion is not enough to take away someone's liberty. But more importantly, the Government has admitted that between 70% and 90% of those prisoners being held in Iraq were wrongly arrested. That's quite a high error rate. More importantly, every person ever arrested here was "suspected" of doing something wrong. And every one that was eventually acquitted or let go for any reason is proof that the Government is not free of error.

      You: "I tend to think that "right-wing ideology" is (or was) the status quo. :)"

      Possibly. The political pendulum swings back and forth. In actuality, from the perspective of Federal judges, most courts have a mix of left-, right-, and center-wingers. But the further west you go there's a more distinct anti-Federal Government leaning. In some instances it's interpreted as left-wing (9th Circuit, for example), or right-wing (ND or MT), but in practice it usually ends up being more anti-Federal Government. Whether it takes the form of rulings like Miranda that limit Government power under the 4th Amendment, or the form of anti-Government lawsuits for forest roads and other environmental regulation, it ends up being the same thing.

    • You: "On a tear, eh? Well, I don't see where Clinton, Kerry, or Edwards milked the system, but maybe you know something about them that I don't."

      No, I was just saying they were fat cats... but on second read, I can see where you inferred I meant they milked the system. Edwards probably did milk the system a bit... dunno how Kerry made his millions, though I know how his wife has her billion or so.

      You: "Don't be daft. Do you really think that Bill Clinton is far left? Most of the really "far left" dropped the Democrats when Bill Clinton got the nomination because they thought the Democrats had become Republican Lite."

      Well, Clinton was a DLC guy. He realized the party was too far left (and still is, in spite of him). And it's funny, but there's times I call the Republicans "Democrat Lite."

      You: "Yep, and it always has. The bigger issue is not the 40 percent or the 19 percent, it's that both major parties have decided that the middle is to be taken for granted, and begun to play to each party's extremes. They haven't realized that simply alienates the middle."

      Yeah, and that's one reason for the DLC's existence. But you can play to the right easier than to the left -- thank goodness -- because you know you only need to win 11-12 percent of the middle. Fun, fun.

      You: "Yep, I agree. The real world is NOTHING like my year living with my girlfriend in my hippie van! You want to hear the real kicker on that story? She eventually married a rich orthapedic surgeon and is now a multi-millionaire and a Republican delegate from my home state. It's true, as Thomas Wolfe said, you can't go home again. But we're still very close friends."

      That's cool.

      You: "If you ask me AARPP is more of a threat to us than welfare. They not only have an agenda, they have the financial means to get it passed."

      Agreed. AARP is a bigger threat than... well, not bin Laden, but maybe it's close. LOL!

      You: "PS - you made passing reference to your test score. How was it? Worth taking it again, or just plow forward and rely on a great entrance essay?"

      Let's say I bombed. E-mail me at buckeyedej2002@yahoo.com and I'll tell you just how bad. I did NOT prepare.

      You: "BTW, if you're really interested, I can give you an insider's secret to getting into any law school you want."

      Now THAT sounds interesting!

    • You: "Right, it is Jose. But how do you know what he's done, or whether he's a dog or not. All you really know is what the Government has told you. Isn't that the same Government that you say can't be trusted with your money? So why would you trust them to tell you the truth?"

      Touche. But would the government hold him if they didn't suspect him of doing anything?

      You: "...I don't think we should ever allow our Government to imprison one of its citizens without access to a court or lawyer, regardless of what that person is suspected of doing."

      Agreed.

      You: "Or an activist Judge who wants to see your right-wing ideology become law? It works both ways."

      I tend to think that "right-wing ideology" is (or was) the status quo. :)

    • How deceitful. So now social security is used for anything and everthing. So it's a big slush fund that governement dips into to satisfy some politician's need to win favor with some voters. And our expert economists make predictions that SS will be bankrupt in X amount of years. And current employees kick into it and say , " I'll never be able to benefit from it.". Not so. Our government is spending money from SS now on everything but SS. They're getting it up front without even knowing about it. They need to ask their congressman. He will explain how they benefit.

    • Gore's plan was, on the surface, merely a bookkeeping change. The Treasury Debt. was not going to be allowed to count the SS contributions as ordinary revenues to offset ordinary debits.

      As it works now, all SS contributions are used to offset ordinary annual spending. That's like saving for retirement, but then saying "Oh, I can buy a $20,000 car today on credit, because I've got $20,000 in my 401k retirement account." Well, yea, but you're still $20,000 in debt if you borrow for that car.

      By Treasury standards, the $20,000 in the retirement account offsets the $20,000 spending for the car, so it would be considered balanced - no deficit.

      I'm not sure Al Gore's plan would have done much, but at the very least it would make our annual deficits more accurately reflect what we were spending each year. As it is, the SS contributions are counted as ordinary revenues, and so the annual deficits look much less. So we end up spending more money, thinking we've got more "revenue" than we really have.

    • Joe, you're absolutely right. It was Gore. But how was he going to implement that? No prior president has, Republican or Democrat. Do you recall what his plan was? Have a good one.

    • You: "Remember those old campaign slogans about putting it in a lock box?"

      I do remember that, and it was Al Gore who said it. And he was basically laughed at and criticized at the time, because of the projected surpluses. Who's laughing now?

    • You: "Welfare isn't just anti-revolution insurance. Bluntly put, it's anti-Republican insurance, and a way to keep minorities enslaved and voting Democratic. Gotta love legalized vote-buying."

      Well, you have your opinion . . . However, our current welfare system was voted on bipartisanly, so I can't agree that it's anti-Republican. I've already pointed out that it costs less than 1/2 of 1% of our budget, and is dwarfed by things like corporate welfare, defense contractor mismanagement and theft, etc.

      You: "Fat cats will always milk the system, including those who don't want to be seen as fat cats (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, etc). That's just a fact of life. Power corrupts. And he with the gold makes the rules. And all those other cliches...."

      On a tear, eh? Well, I don't see where Clinton, Kerry, or Edwards milked the system, but maybe you know something about them that I don't.

      You: "Well, I don't know that you're out on the lunatic fringe, but I certainly believe the far left is, more and more, becoming the mainstream of the Democratic Party -- it started with the 1972 convention and has snowballed ever since."

      Don't be daft. Do you really think that Bill Clinton is far left? Most of the really "far left" dropped the Democrats when Bill Clinton got the nomination because they thought the Democrats had become Republican Lite.

      You: "While more than 40 percent of the American electorate says it's "conservative" and only 19 percent says it's "liberal," that 19 percent is pretty noisy and has the chutzpah and bluster to entice some of that chunk in the middle. The "middle" makes or breaks elections."

      Yep, and it always has. The bigger issue is not the 40 percent or the 19 percent, it's that both major parties have decided that the middle is to be taken for granted, and begun to play to each party's extremes. They haven't realized that simply alienates the middle.

      You: "You and I both know the real world isn't like that. Communalism can't work. I'm sure that "square" people couldn't get past the long hair and the lifestyle, but the political and religious beliefs REALLY put 'em over the edge."

      Yep, I agree. The real world is NOTHING like my year living with my girlfriend in my hippie van! You want to hear the real kicker on that story? She eventually married a rich orthapedic surgeon and is now a multi-millionaire and a Republican delegate from my home state. It's true, as Thomas Wolfe said, you can't go home again. But we're still very close friends.

      You: "Hmmm... that's a thought... But then there's all that whining over prescription drugs, etc., etc. Social Security and all that stuff AARP has its fingerprints all over... well, welcome to the Third Rail...."

      If you ask me AARPP is more of a threat to us than welfare. They not only have an agenda, they have the financial means to get it passed.

      PS - you made passing reference to your test score. How was it? Worth taking it again, or just plow forward and rely on a great entrance essay? BTW, if you're really interested, I can give you an insider's secret to getting into any law school you want.

    • View More Messages
 
F
16.01+0.04(+0.25%)Mar 26 4:00 PMEDT