S
susiedriver
Guest
ok2b,
Our Founding Fathers displayed remarkable wisdom in drafting our constitution.
Our Founding Fathers displayed remarkable wisdom in drafting our constitution.
O
over9five
Guest
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
...and you guys make fun of President Bush.
...and you guys make fun of President Bush.
D
dannyboy
Guest
just taking your lead my dear
"Creation is the following:
Generally, creation is the act or result of bringing something into existence by recombining structures of matter.
In theology, Creation is God's act of bringing the universe into existence from nothing. "
So Gore created the internet. His own words.
d
"Creation is the following:
Generally, creation is the act or result of bringing something into existence by recombining structures of matter.
In theology, Creation is God's act of bringing the universe into existence from nothing. "
So Gore created the internet. His own words.
d
E
ezrider
Guest
Susie
Thanks for the timely and useful link. If nothing else, it at least gives some in-depth background that certainly can't be ignored.
Danny
That sounds more like your own words trying to twist Gore's words to me. I didn't ask you anything related to theology. I asked if you could specifically provide evidence of when and where Gore ever stated the words..."I invented the internet". So I'll ask again. Can you?
Over9five
Susie's post would seem to indicate that Gore most certainly did take a vital role in bringing about the conditions that enable all posters here to interact and exchange. And yet in spite of the history and proof of record you seemed to have somehow deemed his statement as not to be true. Why?
Thanks for the timely and useful link. If nothing else, it at least gives some in-depth background that certainly can't be ignored.
Danny
That sounds more like your own words trying to twist Gore's words to me. I didn't ask you anything related to theology. I asked if you could specifically provide evidence of when and where Gore ever stated the words..."I invented the internet". So I'll ask again. Can you?
Over9five
Susie's post would seem to indicate that Gore most certainly did take a vital role in bringing about the conditions that enable all posters here to interact and exchange. And yet in spite of the history and proof of record you seemed to have somehow deemed his statement as not to be true. Why?
O
over9five
Guest
Ez, Susies quoting an alledged EMail!! AN EMAIL, dude! If I send you an EMail saying I invented the internet, would that make it true? Post some facts.
O
over9five
Guest
O
over9five
Guest
Maybe he should have gotten an international patent...
D
ddomino
Guest
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is the first amendment taken from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti
No where does it say "Seperation". It was not meant to be a seperation but meant that the government can not establish nor prevent the establishment of a religion. Think Hitler, Communist Russia or China. It was to allow free belief, not to seperate.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is the first amendment taken from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti
No where does it say "Seperation". It was not meant to be a seperation but meant that the government can not establish nor prevent the establishment of a religion. Think Hitler, Communist Russia or China. It was to allow free belief, not to seperate.
D
deliver_man
Guest
I like to check with the founding fathers on what they meant, Thomas Jefferson in particular since he authored quite a bit of it:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
President Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1802.
(Message edited by deliver_man on October 08, 2005)
S
susiedriver
Guest
d_man,
Don't forget James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments". It could be used as an argument against tax money going to 'faith based' programs.
Religion can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man, must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. In matters of religion no man's right is abridged by the institution of civil society; and religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance . . .
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority that can call for each citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of only one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment, in all cases whatsoever?
If "all men by nature are equally free and independent," they are to be considered as retaining an "equal right to free exercise of religion, according to dictates of conscience." While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us...
Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. Enquire of the teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect point to the ages prior to incorporation with civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive state, in which its teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks; many of them predict its downfall...
What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.
Don't forget James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments". It could be used as an argument against tax money going to 'faith based' programs.
Religion can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man, must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. In matters of religion no man's right is abridged by the institution of civil society; and religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance . . .
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority that can call for each citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of only one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment, in all cases whatsoever?
If "all men by nature are equally free and independent," they are to be considered as retaining an "equal right to free exercise of religion, according to dictates of conscience." While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us...
Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. Enquire of the teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect point to the ages prior to incorporation with civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive state, in which its teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks; many of them predict its downfall...
What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.
O
ok2bclever
Guest
Yeah, the founding fathers knew what they were doing as they were much closer to seeing what type of abuses having a religious zealot with a head nodding powerbase of sheep can inflict on it's citizenry.
When you can get away with claiming that God told you to do it there are no limits to the abuses of power that can occur.
When you can get away with claiming that God told you to do it there are no limits to the abuses of power that can occur.
M
moreluck
Guest
"When you can get away with claiming that God told you to do it there are no limits to the abuses of power that can occur."
yeah, Jim Jones & kool-aid rings a bell.
yeah, Jim Jones & kool-aid rings a bell.
W
wkmac
Guest
Susie,
Looks like no one is interested in the question(s). As for the dual citizenship this has been going on for so long in Washington with both parties it's not even funny nor an issue anymore unless someone from one political side tries to get some mileage with it over the other guys. Most cases it makes it a few hours and then we focus on the latest celebrity news from Hollywood.
As for the China, National debt and owning American businesses there are numerous ways to look at this. As for the negative, debt itself and especially the enormous federal debt we have is not good and there's not argument the Bush adminstration and the Republican Congress has done nothing to curtail excessive spending. However, it does appear to me that many of us get confused and point back to the Clinton years with the belief that debt was on the way to disappearing. I beg to differ. The media hounds that protect the political players of both sides do a good job of keeping us off balance with understanding the difference between balnce budgets and national debt. We all assume Clinton had balanced the budget but had he? Were the republican control Congress of the day willing partners in a big lie?
In 1983' FICA taxes were increased 25% in part it was said at the time to meet future obligations. During the Clinton years this FICA tax presented a surplus in the $400bil range but I would ask what happened to it? Take the time to look closely at the federal budgets of those years and then close reference to $400 bil plus FICA annual surpluses and their transfers into the general fund. Fact is all FICA taxes we pay go into the general fund and that's the problem to start with but at the time Social Security came into law the gov't had to argue that Social Security wasn't a insurance/retirement plan but was an excise tax on employment with funds collected place into general revenue. Supreme Court had already struck down an identical system the gov't tried to do with the railroad concerning a retirement plan so when Social Security went before SCOTUS in cases like Helvering verse Davis the gov't had the Constitutional authority to impose taxation under Art.1 Sec 8 but it had no authority to impose a centralized insurance/retirement plan. They now have that authority in that our Senate has passed numerous international treaties and treaties by law can be codified into public policy regardless what the Constitution sez.
As for the national debt it continued to grow at it's horrid pace even during the Clinton years and this too is easy to plot out if one so chooses to do. Here is also the other ugly truth. In order to pay the national debt off over time the debt is actually twice as much as they say it is. Proof? Take any current debt you have, home, car, whatever and tell me what the current payoff is. That is your personal debt at that moment if you paid it off at that moment but how much will it really cost you if you paid that debt off over time according to the payment schedule. So you see folks, again these bastards are lying to us as the real debt is far worse as we have no means to pay it all off at this very moment. The interest is also accumulating so fast that many believe that we aren't even servicing the interest at the present moment.
As for gov't acting outside the bounds of Constitutional provisions your time would be well spent researching Treaty law and you can guarantee there's an international agreement somewhere that gives them the power to do what they are doing. NAFTA, GAT and others were not the first by any stretch and won't be the last either. I contend the most damaging treaties to our nation we actually never hear or get wind off. We've been had by Washington and both sides are equally guilty IMO.
As for China, on the one hand the true definition of slavery is when another owns your property and the means of your pursuit of happiness because when both of these elements are owned they own you as they can then dicate your every move. Debt is the very vehicle that can be used to do this and is more effective than bombs and guns. On the other hand there are those that argue that China's investment in America helps to guarantee there won't be war as to attack would deminish the value of the asset and their investment. Most of this thinking comes from folks who are focused on a global community where we are all one under the UN and they themselves stand to make a lot of money from the whole deal. As a libertarian I believe in totally open borders with free movement for all and I also believe that you should be able to work and own business anywhere you want. Yes, it's utopian and would work on the premise that the entire global were a free, open and for lack of better word a libertarian culture but human nature gets in the way and therefore unlikely to happen. Even God has been unable to get us hardheaded humans to live with each other just using the most basics concepts of decency so I can't see us ever doing something like this on our own. In the meantime we can keep placing our trust in big gov't which is owned and controlled by big business and the very thing we want gov't to protect us from we will keep seeing more and more of. We live in a world of Hegelian Dialectics and I see nothing that will change this.
S
susiedriver
Guest
wkmac,
I was wondering about dual citizenship in light of the coming indictments, and the indictments that have been handed down already. AIPAC is one that springs to mind right away, and I don't think we're done with that one yet.
I ran across an interesting article in Epoch Times regarding China's plans. I am reluctant to post it, due to the source. It did, however, tie into some other interesting reading I've been doing. If I'm able to coobborate it I will pass it along. Needless to say, it disputes your contention that China won't go to war with the US.
Utopianism has gotten us into enough trouble. The neocons are definitely utopian. Please refer to the writings of Jim Lobe.
I was wondering about dual citizenship in light of the coming indictments, and the indictments that have been handed down already. AIPAC is one that springs to mind right away, and I don't think we're done with that one yet.
I ran across an interesting article in Epoch Times regarding China's plans. I am reluctant to post it, due to the source. It did, however, tie into some other interesting reading I've been doing. If I'm able to coobborate it I will pass it along. Needless to say, it disputes your contention that China won't go to war with the US.
Utopianism has gotten us into enough trouble. The neocons are definitely utopian. Please refer to the writings of Jim Lobe.
T
tieguy
Guest
"As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network."
Suzie once again you limit your focus in order to provide us with a biased view. Its very likely cerf an kahn came to the defense of Gore and somewhat embellished his role in developing the internet. Gore was a supporter of internet development , Gore was never an innovator responsible in any way nor involved in the original creation of the internet. The internet was in fact created in 1968 and evolved from there well ahead of your listing his initial involvement in the 70's.
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/2002_0918_Internet_History_and_Growth.ppt#275,1,Internet History and Growth
Suzie once again you limit your focus in order to provide us with a biased view. Its very likely cerf an kahn came to the defense of Gore and somewhat embellished his role in developing the internet. Gore was a supporter of internet development , Gore was never an innovator responsible in any way nor involved in the original creation of the internet. The internet was in fact created in 1968 and evolved from there well ahead of your listing his initial involvement in the 70's.
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/2002_0918_Internet_History_and_Growth.ppt#275,1,Internet History and Growth
W
wkmac
Guest
Better go back and read again as I never contended any such thing!
S
susiedriver
Guest
Sorry, I took "On the other hand there are those that argue that China's investment in America helps to guarantee there won't be war as to attack would deminish the value of the asset and their investment" as being your opinion.
T
tieguy
Guest
Kind of a choppy thread , china going to war with us. Dual citizenship. Al Gore inventing the internet. Suzie I gotta give it to you , you pulled out all the wacko topics on this one.
S
susiedriver
Guest
Thank dBoy and moreluck for the topic changes.
D
dannyboy
Guest
and while you are at it, blame the war, high gas prices, the destruction in the south, poor people, stupid people, rich people, Bush being president, and any thing else you can think of, like you not getting ......(nope, I am not gonna), on me. Ive got broad shoulders, I can take it.
}
d
d
Similar threads
