Newt, like Obama, is an undesirable prick who should never even get
close the WH.
On Dec 6, 4:26 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Grin>!
>
> Okay....Touche'.......
>
> I do need to tone it down with the rhetoric. My apologies.
>
> Keith
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:55 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ok, continue calling me a crackpot and I'll continue to call you a
> > warmongering imperialist
>
> > On Dec 5, 11:00 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I love it when Crackpots disagree!!
>
> > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > the bottom line is that Americans can't afford an open border
> > > > policy ... nor can we afford to be interventionists around the globe
>
> > > > On Dec 5, 4:26 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > "After living for 21 years in the U.S., [Liliana] Ramos, 39, was
> > > > > deported to Mexico in September, separated from the two daughters and
> > > > > son she has raised as a single mother since her ex-husband left them
> > > > > seven years ago." ( USA Today)
> > > > > This (above) was the lead for your "Story"... It is a lie, it is
> > > > > bullshit, it is irresponsible.
>
> > > > > When a parent is deported the children have every right to accompany
> > > > > him or her or them home... To be truly accurate in what transpires
> > the
> > > > > headline would have to read:
>
> > > > > "Mother abandons children when deported, chooses to leave them
> > behind"
>
> > > > > Since the premise is a lie, pure bullshit and irresponsible; so is
> > the
> > > > > rest of the story.
>
> > > > > On Dec 5, 2:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Families at Risk from Immigration Authorities"After living for 21
> > > > years in the U.S., [Liliana] Ramos, 39, was deported to Mexico in
> > > > September, separated from the two daughters and son she has raised as a
> > > > single mother since her ex-husband left them seven years ago." (USA
> > > > Today)Family values.The Source of RightsDean Russell
> > > > > > November 1984 • Volume: 34 • Issue: 11 •Dr. Russell, recently
> > retired
> > > > from a full schedule of academic work, continues free-lance consulting,
> > > > lecturing and writing from his home in Westchester County, New York.
> > > > > > This is one of a series of articles examining current
> > interventions of
> > > > the welfare state in the light of warnings from the French economist
> > and
> > > > statesman, Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).
> > > > > > The prevailing justification for governmental action in the United
> > > > States today is this: The desires of the majority, as determined by
> > > > universal and secret ballot, shall become the law of the land. And
> > once the
> > > > vote is in, everyone must obey, including those who think the law is
> > > > immoral or economically destructive. Even if a person thinks the law
> > > > violates individual freedom and the basic human rights of every
> > person, he
> > > > must still conform. Here are three examples of this situation
> > currently in
> > > > force.
> > > > > > 1. Some hospital administrators think abortions are immoral. Even
> > so,
> > > > abortions must still be accommodated in their hospitals. If the
> > > > administrator refuses, the penalty for frustrating the legal right of a
> > > > woman to have an abortion in a hospital open to the general public
> > will be
> > > > the loss of essential funds and certification for the hospital. This
> > will
> > > > result in the almost-certain de-raise of that particular hospital.
> > > > > > 2. One of the few economic principles accepted by economists of all
> > > > persuasions is that tariffs cause higher prices, with a resulting
> > decrease
> > > > in goods and services. Even so, we economists (along with everyone
> > else)
> > > > must conform to that costly measure in practice, or suffer additional
> > > > penalties as law-breakers.
> > > > > > 3. If the idea of human rights has any validity at all, surely the
> > > > most fundamental one is the right of every peaceful human being to his
> > own
> > > > life. Yet the majority of American people have voted time and again to
> > give
> > > > to our government (the mechanism we use to enforce the collective
> > will) the
> > > > right to sacrifice that life on a battlefield of its own choosing.
> > > > > > Since the majority of people claim they have a right to use legal
> > > > violence to compel dissenters to conform to those laws (and thousands
> > more
> > > > just like them), surely they should feel some obligation to justify
> > their
> > > > position with a rationale more acceptable than, "There are more of us
> > than
> > > > there are of you; we're bigger."
> > > > > > Further, when there's a prior law (constitutional or common or
> > > > statute) that interferes with the current desires of the majority, then
> > > > that law can be repealed in precisely the same manner the new law is
> > > > passed, i.e., by majority vote in the customary way it's done in our
> > > > particular form of democracy and representative government. While our
> > > > unique Constitution (along with tradition) can delay the popular will,
> > it
> > > > can't stop it.
> > > > > > Ask anyoneteacher, preacher, editor, or public officialhow
> > > > weshoulddetermine what is (and what is not) a proper function of
> > > > government. The answer is always, "Why, by a democratic
> > > > votetheAmericanway." If there's any other generally accepted way to
> > > > determine collective actions, I'm unaware of it.
> > > > > > This doesn't mean, of course, that this philosophy of government
> > > > causes the minority (the individual) to accept the decision of the
> > majority
> > > > as right or just. And certainly it doesn't cause us to accept it as
> > final.
> > > > In fact, this process of majority-rule automatically encourages the
> > losers
> > > > to regroup and strive again to become a majorityand then, in turn, to
> > > > impose their desires on the former victors. While each group always
> > claims
> > > > "right is on our side," neither is in a sound position to make that
> > claimat
> > > > least, not as long as each group is striving to impose its will on the
> > > > other group by force of law that's based on nothing more acceptable
> > than
> > > > sheer numbers.
> > > > > > This battle is never-ending. It's fought on the local level, the
> > state
> > > > level, the national level, and the international level. And it will
> > > > continue to be fought on all levels everywhere until this vital issue
> > of
> > > > individual rights and group rights is based on a more acceptable and
> > > > fundamental principle than the law of large numbers.Individual Rights
> > > > > > In truth, if it's to be effective, the issue must be settled
> > between
> > > > persons in the smallest possible unitjust two human beings deciding
> > > > together what rights each has as an individual, what rights the two of
> > them
> > > > have collectively, and the source of those individual and collective
> > > > rights. Until that hoped-for. accomplishment is in place, how-ever, we
> > must
> > > > continue to remain constantly alert for those persons (even the
> > > > well-intentioned ones) who are trying to use the law to force you and
> > me to
> > > > conform totheirviewpoints. And please remember that those persons are
> > to be
> > > > found in Washington rather than in Moscow. While the Russians are
> > truly a
> > > > threat to our freedom, it's a threat of another kind.
> > > > > > In our heated discussions of this issue of "rights," all of us
> > > > actually do pay lip-service to the idea of rights for the individual,
> > i.e.,
> > > > we constantly recite the word. But almost never do we use the concept
> > of
> > > > individual rights to determine the validity of collective rights.
> > > > > > You'd think that would be the logical starting point. But when more
> > > > than two people are involved, it seems we just call for a show of
> > > > handswinner takes all. The losers then immediately prepare to continue
> > the
> > > > battle in one way or another untiltheyfinally become the majority.
> > > > > > And why not; for once you move away from the idea of individual
> > rights
> > > > to collective rights, what criterion is left except the law of large
> > > > numbers? The only principle I can find there is that, mathematically,
> > 51
> > > > per cent is larger than 49 per cent. There's not even one individual
> > right
> > > > to be found in that concept.
> > > > > > But since this law of large numbers (democracy in action) is the
> > only
> > > > rationale we've ever been taught for determining proper governmental
> > > > actions in any area, it's not surprising we accept it without undue
> > > > protest. We simply don't know any other way to do it. And in the areas
> > of
> > > > our most heated disagreements, e.g., taxing and spending and other
> > matters
> > > > affecting our incomes, most of us appear to vote
> > automaticallyagainstpaying
> > > > higher taxes and voteforgetting more subsidies of some kind.
> > > > > > As Frederic Bastiat said inThe Law:"When plunder is organized by
> > law .
> > > > . . all the plundered classes try somehow to enterby peaceful or
> > > > revolutionary meansinto the making of laws."
> > > > > > If the American people (you and I and our neighbors) can legally
> > get
> > > > money merely by voting for it, most of us will do so. Even if some of
> > us
> > > > are hesitant to vote subsidies directly to ourselves, we feel real good
> > > > when we do the same thing indirectly by voting for more government
> > housing,
> > > > education, and medical care for needy people. Whether we say so or
> > not, we
> > > > know full well we'd have to do it with our own money if the government
> > > > didn't do it.
> > > > > > This process will continue with increasingly destructive
> > consequences
> > > > until one of two solutions occurs. First (and most likely), a would-be
> > > > dictator will seize power by declaring an emergency and refusing to
> > submit
> > > > his right to rule to the uncertain outcome of another election that
> > > > involves an opposition party. You need only glance casually around you
> > to
> > > > discover scores of nations where
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment