Poll shows a nation deeply divided

with mass media we have a plethora of political information and opinions to bombard us everyday, literally 24 hours a day. there are so many far wing hacks on both sides that there is bound to be people who listen and ultimately believe far wing agendas. also...i don't think people believe in america like we did 30 or more years ago. it seems many of us are republican or democrat first and americans second.
 
.

And just what are good Americans ?....

What do Americans vow ?
Our Senators and Representatives and Presidents?

Number 1 on that list has to be , "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America".

We lived with the Constitution for well over 200 years and there was little if any disagreement as to what that document meant....what rights we enjoyed.

How did the First Amendment suddenly get transformed to remove mention of ALL religion and God from the governments lands, buildings, pledge, oaths, documents, etc.....
Now it hasn't happened totally yet, but we are well on our way down that road....

Would our money, if designed today, have In God We Trust printed on it...?
Would our government buildings, if they were being built today, have the same religious designs as they do now....?

Would "Americans" diligently work to abolish, weaken, and limit the rights given to us under the Second Amendment.....

Does being an American still mean "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America"????

Did being an American EVER, even remotely mean we would embrace Socialism or Communism ???
 
bravo said:
.

And just what are good Americans ?....

What do Americans vow ?
Our Senators and Representatives and Presidents?

Number 1 on that list has to be , "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America".

We lived with the Constitution for well over 200 years and there was little if any disagreement as to what that document meant....what rights we enjoyed.

How did the First Amendment suddenly get transformed to remove mention of ALL religion and God from the governments lands, buildings, pledge, oaths, documents, etc.....
Now it hasn't happened totally yet, but we are well on our way down that road....

Would our money, if designed today, have In God We Trust printed on it...?
Would our government buildings, if they were being built today, have the same religious designs as they do now....?

Would "Americans" diligently work to abolish, weaken, and limit the rights given to us under the Second Amendment.....

Does being an American still mean "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America"????

Did being an American EVER, even remotely mean we would embrace Socialism or Communism ???
Click to expand...

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. (Dic.com)

Who has EVER, even remotely suggested America should embrace Socialism?

Advocating shelter for everyone does not mean everyone should be given title to land and a house. Advocating sufficient food for everyone does not mean giving everyone a farm. Advocating medical care for everyone does not mean everyone should have a private doctor on call.

The problem is not in embracing Socialism. The problem lies in the misnomer labeling "helping" as Socialism.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Fundamental purposes and guiding principals. In other words the reason for the Constitution and justice is one of the first things mentioned.

Justice:
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct. (Dic.com)

Righteousness. Just conduct. Moral principal. Where do those "guiding principals" fit in with an attitude we have no obligation to help the hungry and homeless and ill?

How does one twist the intent of the Constitution to mean that even if America can feed the hungry and house the homeless and look after the ill the Founding Fathers would have preferred they suffer and die?

Just what are good Americans?
 
Yurt said:
with mass media we have a plethora of political information and opinions to bombard us everyday, literally 24 hours a day. there are so many far wing hacks on both sides that there is bound to be people who listen and ultimately believe far wing agendas. also...i don't think people believe in america like we did 30 or more years ago. it seems many of us are republican or democrat first and americans second.
Click to expand...

While it is true that vast destruction has been wrought upon America since Raygun was elected 30 years ago, Americans still beleive in America, they just don't beleive in republican'ts as much (thank god).
Keep your disturbing un-american thoughts to yourself douche.
 
apple0154 said:
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. (Dic.com)

Who has EVER, even remotely suggested America should embrace Socialism?

Advocating shelter for everyone does not mean everyone should be given title to land and a house. Advocating sufficient food for everyone does not mean giving everyone a farm. Advocating medical care for everyone does not mean everyone should have a private doctor on cal

The problem is not in embracing Socialism. The problem lies in the misnomer labeling "helping" as Socialism.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Fundamental purposes and guiding principals. In other words the reason for the Constitution and justice is one of the first things mentioned.

Justice:
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct. (Dic.com)

Righteousness. Just conduct. Moral principal. Where do those "guiding principals" fit in with an attitude we have no obligation to help the hungry and homeless and ill?

How does one twist the intent of the Constitution to mean that even if America can feed the hungry and house the homeless and look after the ill the Founding Fathers would have preferred they suffer and die?

Just what are good Americans?
Click to expand...

Bravo beleives whatever Karl Rove, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or Lush Windbag tell him to beleive.
 
apple0154 said:
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. (Dic.com)

Who has EVER, even remotely suggested America should embrace Socialism?

Advocating shelter for everyone does not mean everyone should be given title to land and a house. Advocating sufficient food for everyone does not mean giving everyone a farm. Advocating medical care for everyone does not mean everyone should have a private doctor on call.

The problem is not in embracing Socialism. The problem lies in the misnomer labeling "helping" as Socialism.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Fundamental purposes and guiding principals. In other words the reason for the Constitution and justice is one of the first things mentioned.

Justice:
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct. (Dic.com)

Righteousness. Just conduct. Moral principal. Where do those "guiding principals" fit in with an attitude we have no obligation to help the hungry and homeless and ill?

How does one twist the intent of the Constitution to mean that even if America can feed the hungry and house the homeless and look after the ill the Founding Fathers would have preferred they suffer and die?

Just what are good Americans?
Click to expand...
I certainly agree....
so wtf are you rambling about...??? You have every right to help anyone you want to...no one, no government law, no municiple regulation was ever enacted that would stop, prevent or hinder your coming to the aid of anyone....
The Preamble to the Constitution is a worthy set of principles to live....it is a moral code, IT IS NOT LAW....

This country is founded on your freedom to llive by your individual moral code, individual rights, individual responsibility, and individual freedom.....So help your fellow man all you want....

We have established Justice through law that works to insure domestic Tranquility, and provide for the common defence, has always been recognized as the MAIN DUTY of our government, promote the general Welfare , as infrastructure that us available for EVERYONE, and not only available to some because of religion, race, wealth, or any other personal circumstance....
 
King of the Hill said:
Bravo beleives whatever Karl Rove, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or Lush Windbag tell him to beleive.
Click to expand...


The problem with that lie is I don't even know these people any more that I know Obama, Ed Schultz, Kieth Olbermann or you......and they don't tell me anything

I do know, I've never heard any Conservative rant against any part of the Constitution or make an effort to restrict the rights established for us in that Constitution....
 
bravo said:
The problem with that lie is I don't even know these people any more that I know Obama, Ed Schultz, Kieth Olbermann or you......and they don't tell me anything

I do know, I've never heard any Conservative rant against any part of the Constitution or make an effort to restrict the rights established for us in that Constitution....
Click to expand...

Is your buddy Dixie a conservative?

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...new-talk-over-Patriot-Act&p=811510#post811510

Is the Pariot act constitutional?
 
icon1.png


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by apple0154

Who has EVER, even remotely suggested America should embrace Socialism?
Click to expand...
wanderingbear said:
I have.
Click to expand...

You're not alone.....Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Che, Hugo Chavez....and most Democrats in the US....
 
bravo said:
Don't know Dixie.....or for that matter, you either....and we elect Constitutional judges to make determinations on issues of law....its over my pay grade, ask Yurt and Jughead

If you need to change the topic, start a new thread.
Click to expand...

You have read dixies diatribes for years, is he conservative? I am not changing the subject, just proving you wrong...again.
 
King of the Hill said:
You have read dixies diatribes for years, is he conservative? I am not changing the subject, just proving you wrong...again.
Click to expand...
If he is trying to pervert or redefine what has been the common understanding of the Constitution for the last 200 and some odd years....I so no.....
Other than that, I don't know Dixie at all.....and your opinion of him is as meaningless to me as any of your opinions about anyones character....

I pay more attention to diatribes from the likes of you, apple, christie, jarod, onecell and some others....
 
bravo said:
If he is trying to pervert or redefine what has been the common understanding of the Constitution for the last 200 and some odd years....I so no.....
Other than that, I don't know Dixie at all.....and your opinion of him is as meaningless to me as any of your opinions about anyones character....

I pay more attention to diatribes from the likes of you, apple, christie, jarod, onecell and some others....
Click to expand...

Circle jerk again, huh?
 
bravo said:
The problem with that lie is I don't even know these people any more that I know Obama, Ed Schultz, Kieth Olbermann or you......and they don't tell me anything

I do know, I've never heard any Conservative rant against any part of the Constitution or make an effort to restrict the rights established for us in that Constitution....
Click to expand...
Justice Scalia, a dyed in the wool conservative has no problem with violating the fourth amendment with "exigent circumstances" when in comes to searches without a warrant. The Constitution makes no exceptions. The government cannot search without a warrant. But if the property to be searched is a car, then Scalia and lots of right wingers have no problem with searching without a warrant because the car might move and the evidence might disappear. Conservatives also have a problem with thre 9th amendment which says that that just because it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution there is no right. To say that our founders did not believe in a right to privacy is crazy. But since it is not mentioned specifically then it does not exist is a conservative position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top