[quote]JeffR wrote:
The Founders believed in a strong Centralized Government.
JeffR[/quote]
Is you crazy?
[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
The Founders believed in a strong Centralized Government.
JeffR
Is you crazy?[/quote]
Philadelphia, circa 1787.
It’s another epicenter of change.
Look it up,
JeffR
JeffR wrote:
I’m going to at least attempt to keep this civil since I have found you to be a reasonable poster. I am rather alarmed at your nonchalant acceptance of Rudy’s statement however.
That is fine. I really hate the thought of a democrat winning. That said, if Hitler were a formidable opponent to Hillary would that earn him your vote? Rudy isn’t Hitler, but he is certainly every bit the authoritarian many democrats are. That quote alone is proof of it.[quote]
I meant to tell you that I can see both sides of your carrying argument the other day. You must understand that walking around with your gun hanging out in public (especially post-911/columbine etc) is going to arouse some suspicion.
[/quote]
Certainly. We just lost our first police officer here since 1889. So as to not have to butt heads with any police (since they have tried to publicly intimidate and embarass me in the past) I have decided to wait a month or so before carrying again. Frankly, I would much rather concealed carry. It makes me look like less of a tool. That said, I don’t believe I should have to get a license to enjoy my rights. I also think it is important for the people to see that there are still citizens among the sheep.[quote]
I see your point about personal freedoms. However, I hope you see the point of Law Enforcement.[/quote]
To an extent, yes. Enforcing contracts, protecting property and preserving life are all good and valid purposes for the police officer. My beef with cops is that many of them willingly enforce laws that are either unconstitutional or just plain violations of liberty. This makes them TYRANTS when they perform this duty. An officer giving me a ticket for refusing to wear a seat belt or the ATF agent throwing me in prison for my rifle being an inch too short is an enemy of the people and should be treated as such.
Many of these violations are minor. This doesn’t make them right, it just means that I shouldn’t form a local militia and start sniping police officers when they give out MIP’s to 20 year old college kids. But therein lies my fear and mistrust of the police. I think many cops know that what they are doing is wrong when they give out seat belt tickets and such. They do it anyway though. If they are willing to do that then I cannot trust them not to violate any number of other rights. (guns, freedoms of assembly, ect)
[quote]
Further, in time of war, every society has had curtailed personal freedoms.
[/quote] Yes, and most every society has had one form of slavery or another at some point in time. Tradition does not equal justification.
“Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”
Two points here: Do you recall the party line in 1984? War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. That sounds eerily similar to Rudy’s, “Freedom is about authority.”
Secondly, what lawful authority is allowed to deny me the Bill of Rights? These are the words of Alexander Hamilton who was the strongest advocate for a strong centralized government, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
Well, there is freedom in anarchy but I am not making a call for that. I am more Hamilton than Jefferson.
If I had a nickel for every time I have to say this: “The Founders” did not believe in a strong centralized government. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Morris and others did. Jefferson, Henry, and others did not. Hell, even Madison who is widely considered the author of the Constitution had qualms about it once it was emplaced. It is NOT possible to speak for the founders in one voice. Such is either ignorant or dishonest.
[quote]
Strong Federal Government, by it’s very nature, existed due to cessation of certain freedoms. Be it personal or state freedoms. [/quote]
That is why a Bill of Rights was put in. Government encroaches and the antifederalists knew that. That is why they demanded a Bill of Rights be added.
Then you lack imagination. Speaking of the terror during the French Revolution, Jefferson said that he would rather see half the population wiped off the earth than to see democracy fail.
There certainly is. That is why I am not an anarchist. Hell, I am pro-Iraq. Quite often however, that sinister element is the government itself.
Yes. This same guy will readily label you or I a terrorist for refusing to allow ourselves to become sheep to the slaughter. I’m not afraid of terrorists in America. If they can’t take down Israel, they certainly cannot get us. The government however…[quote]
I’ll vote the guy most likely to understand what happened on 9/11. You can tell it changed him in dramatic ways.
JeffR[/quote]
laugh Seriously? It changed him by making him even more the totalitarian. Only now it is against terrorists instead of criminals or those evil strip clubs. You think Rudy understands what happened on 9/11? In the debate he claimed to have “survived” 9/11. Really? Was he in one of the towers? Was he in the Pentagon? Was he on flight 93? I was in Hawaii on base and I “survived” 9/11 just as much as he did.
growl In the words of Princess Leia, “Help me Fred Thompson, you’re our only hope.”
mike
[quote]renny wrote:
Recap. Hauer wanted Brooklyn. Rudy said no, gotta get his walk on. Hauer said WTC 7. Rudy says booya. People critisize Rudy for WTC 7. He BLAMES Hauer for following orders.
Right, you don’t see a problem there?
Or maybe the fact that I would like my president to be accountable for the decisions he makes is wishful thinking[/quote]
renny, did you read the link I sent?
Did you notice that the only directive that Rudy sent out was “close to City Hall.”
Does that equal World Trade Center?
Did it not strike you that hauer selected the site and then enthusiastically supported it?
I know you want to make this into something nefarious.
Sounds more like some sour grapes to me.
If you didn’t read the whole article, please don’t respond to this post.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
The Founders believed in a strong Centralized Government.
JeffR
Is you crazy?
Philadelphia, circa 1787.
It’s another epicenter of change.
Look it up,
JeffR
[/quote]
I looked it up.
You are wrong, Mikeyali is right.
The US federal government of today however has far more power than it should have under the contitution (f,e,Interstate commerce clause) so it has much more power than the “federalists” would have voted for.
I am not even going into your case for slavery, be it in the form of incme taxes or the draft.
I wonder what it is you “conservative” conserve?
You are a Democrate with combat boots.
If Rudy doesn’t derail his own campaign Judith will. Imagine a first lady even more involved in her husband’s presidency than even Hillary was in 92-94. Now imagine that instead of a Yale law degree and a modicum of political sense she was uneducated and politically clueless.
[quote]etaco wrote:
If Rudy doesn’t derail his own campaign Judith will.[/quote]
I’m hoping that at some point, Rudy and Judith both show up wearing the same dress.
Can you imagine if Rudy gets elected, and we have to put up with four years of news stories about how the families of the First Wife and the First Ex-Wife* all hate each other?
[quote]During the two-hour graduation, the Giulianis could be seen whispering to each other and peering over at a happy Hanover and her husband, Edwin Oster, sitting 30 yards away.
Rudy and Judith Giuliani avoided his children and ex-wife by arriving minutes before the ceremony began, entering through a side entrance, and they ducked out 10 minutes before it ended.[/quote]
*(or is she the 2nd Ex-Wife?)
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
If Rudy and Hillary are the nominees I’ll be staying home on the day of the election. And I know many who feel as I do. There isn’t much difference between the two.
[/quote]
Mick,
This post surprised me. Do you really think Rudy would have voted to cut off funding for the troops?
To me, that’s a WORLD of difference.
JeffR
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
If Rudy and Hillary are the nominees I’ll be staying home on the day of the election. And I know many who feel as I do. There isn’t much difference between the two.
Mick,
This post surprised me. Do you really think Rudy would have voted to cut off funding for the troops?
To me, that’s a WORLD of difference.
JeffR
I agree. As I said there isn’t “much” difference between the two. Try comparing them on social issues.
[/quote]
Mick,
You’ve probably guessed I think Rudy is a breath of fresh air for the Republicans.
He’s different and his social stances are perpendicular to many stated Republican platform beliefs.
However, can you really tell me you or anyone else knows what hillary’s beliefs are?
They seem so malleable and superficial.
It’s part of the reason she isn’t going to win.
It’s flip floppery to the nth degree.
The dems, bless their hearts, aren’t going to figure this out. We are going to have a steady diet of hillary, hillary, hillary.
It’s enough to make your stomach turn.
Again, besides being public officials representing New York at various times, I don’t see many similarities at all.
JeffR
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
If Rudy and Hillary are the nominees I’ll be staying home on the day of the election. And I know many who feel as I do. There isn’t much difference between the two.
[/quote]
Same here. Might be the year I write in Larry Bird.