Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Whoa, that better have been a joke.

I'm only saying I think I could take him. Hillary and McCain would whip up on me with their internal rage power.

[JWBear]

A McCain Presidency scares me because it would be, at least, four more years of what we have now. I honestly don't think this country can survive that.

ETA that a Hillary Clinton presidency scares me because I fear that she will do anything she can to prove she has bigger cojones than anyone else.

[scaeagles]

Really? You believe that it would literally mean the end of America?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Really? You believe that it would literally mean the end of America?

America as we know it now. If we continue on our present course, I can only see disaster coming... economic collapse, destruction of our military, massive civil unrest, revolution, invasion… take your pick. The policies of the current neo-con/corporate controlled Republican Party will destroy this nation.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

America as we know it now. If we continue on our present course, I can only see disaster coming... economic collapse, destruction of our military, massive civil unrest, revolution, invasion… take your pick. The policies of the current neo-con/corporate controlled Republican Party will destroy this nation.

It is so funny that I feel that same way when thinking about Obama or Hillary in office. Without the last sentence, of course.

[wendybeth]

I resent the hell out of our tax dollars going to the industrial war complex. By that, I mean the apolitical politicians- like Cheney- who stand for nothing more than profit at any cost, even if it means the destruction of our country and the deaths of thousands of our citizens. I never thought you were rich, Scaeagles- I really don't concern myself with such matters, but I do know that you cite money as a primary motivator in your political decisions. I like money as much as the next person, but not at the cost of my humanity.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

II do know that you cite money as a primary motivator in your political decisions. I like money as much as the next person, but not at the cost of my humanity.

It isn't that my motivation is that I like money more than the next person. I am just against legalized theivery and redistribution of wealth, which is what I regard a large portion of taxation as. I am against the legalized pyramid scheme of social security. I do not believe that it is the place of government to determine that they can make better use of money I earn than they can. And I resent the hell out of the fact that the government never feels like they can do with less....it is ALWAYS more. Sadly GWB has failed me (and America) mightily in this area with the virtually exponential growth of the federal budget.

[scaeagles]

I would suggest, from what I know of the Federalist Papers (which I've read, but certainly do not consider myself a scholar on), that they would be far more appalled at the level of spending on clearly not Constitutionally mandated functions. James Madison once said, when a bill appropriating $15,000 for some....gosh, I'm thinking refuges from somewhere, but can't be sure....that "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

You think I haven't been hit in the pocket book? Do you think I'm rich? I still believe in the principles I'm espousing regardless of their direct impact on my bottom line because I think they're right.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would suggest, from what I know of the Federalist Papers (which I've read, but certainly do not consider myself a scholar on), that they would be far more appalled at the level of spending on clearly not Constitutionally mandated functions. James Madison once said, when a bill appropriating $15,000 for some....gosh, I'm thinking refuges from somewhere, but can't be sure....that "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

You think I haven't been hit in the pocket book? Do you think I'm rich? I still believe in the principles I'm espousing regardless of their direct impact on my bottom line because I think they're right.

How would the founding fathers feel about domestic spying and the Patriot (sic) Act?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

How would the founding fathers feel about domestic spying and the Patriot (sic) Act?

Fair question, and it is very tough to say.

I must say, being that I am a strict constructionist and I must be true to my belief system, that they would indeed object as a violation of the 4th amendment.

That being said, I personally do not have problems with the echelon system and software flagging personal conversations based on keywords for later analysis by a human. I'm not sure how they what they would think about that, because the flagging of keywords can perhaps mean that it is no longer unreasonable to listen in.