Centre Punch
Well-Known Member
At least you guys have the chance of a vote, we in the UK are going to get a Prime Minister that no one even voted for!
Ian.
Ian.
Hillary Clinton for president....
- Thread starter abinok
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
biff's reloading
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2006
- Messages
- 360
how? thats a dictator not a PM!!!
Ballistic64
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Biff, If they tap my phone I have nothing to worry about. They are protecting us!!
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said something along the lines of a person willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserves niether.
I agree with Biff, If they tap my phone I have nothing to worry about. They are protecting us!!
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said something along the lines of a person willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserves niether.
biff's reloading
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2006
- Messages
- 360
and which freedoms would i be sacrificing by allowing a federal terrorist investigation to listen in on my conversations with people overseas? do you realize they have an eye on many many more things than that? you will surely never know what they really spy in on..... and is there really a reason to be fearful unless you are guilty of aiding a terrorist action yourself? that quote was not intended to keep the feds from employing secretive tactics to intercept illegal terrorist activity. we give up NO freedoms at all by allowing them to listen in on international calls to known terrorists....... its a simple way to keep tabs on the bad guys, and had the word never gotten out about it, noone would care or be affected except the bad guys.
we have put these folks in a position of power where they can spy on anyone including us. it is noone's fault but our own. and there are much worse things they could be doing in secret that im sure ol jefferson would be a bit more agitated about. i feel no threat from any of this towards my right to protect myself and my family.
id really like to be of the priveledged few to get to know all the confidential or classified stuff that they do and know. i bet it would blow a guys mind /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif
we have put these folks in a position of power where they can spy on anyone including us. it is noone's fault but our own. and there are much worse things they could be doing in secret that im sure ol jefferson would be a bit more agitated about. i feel no threat from any of this towards my right to protect myself and my family.
id really like to be of the priveledged few to get to know all the confidential or classified stuff that they do and know. i bet it would blow a guys mind /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif
longrangebo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 292
Do you know what Biff, You should run, you would get my vote /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Ballistic64
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
and which freedoms would i be sacrificing by allowing a federal terrorist investigation to listen in on my conversations with people overseas? do you realize they have an eye on many many more things than that? you will surely never know what they really spy in on..... and is there really a reason to be fearful unless you are guilty of aiding a terrorist action yourself? that quote was not intended to keep the feds from employing secretive tactics to intercept illegal terrorist activity. we give up NO freedoms at all by allowing them to listen in on international calls to known terrorists....... its a simple way to keep tabs on the bad guys, and had the word never gotten out about it, noone would care or be affected except the bad guys.
we have put these folks in a position of power where they can spy on anyone including us. it is noone's fault but our own. and there are much worse things they could be doing in secret that im sure ol jefferson would be a bit more agitated about. i feel no threat from any of this towards my right to protect myself and my family.
id really like to be of the priveledged few to get to know all the confidential or classified stuff that they do and know. i bet it would blow a guys mind /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Freedoms/rights same definition by me.Yes, the Homeland Security Act did flush freedoms/rights down the toilet.To me the HSA represents a much greater threat to the American citizen than it does any terrorist or terrorist organization.Anytime the feds give themselves the right to bypass a judical process it is a threat to the rights of US States and citizens.And yes,federal legislation of this type is exactly what the founders of this country feared.It just threw away another check/balance of the judical/executive branch of govrnment.
But yes,I also agree with you,its not the first and probably not the last,but I think youll find in the coming years more and more people are going to be fed up with the power abuse of the federal government.
Very soon everyone will be giving up (ok,not giving it up,but having it legislated out of existance) thier right to own a gun,whether they like it or not.The freedom/right to defend ones home and family WILL be gone.None (or not enough to matter) of the politicians in power care what thier servants will is,which is exactly what we have become.Sometime long ago,our elected officials stopped representing us and we were forced to represent them.Take it for what its worth,hopefully in ten years you can post back on here (if firearm discussion is allowed on a communication network) and tell me Im full of ****.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
and which freedoms would i be sacrificing by allowing a federal terrorist investigation to listen in on my conversations with people overseas? do you realize they have an eye on many many more things than that? you will surely never know what they really spy in on..... and is there really a reason to be fearful unless you are guilty of aiding a terrorist action yourself? that quote was not intended to keep the feds from employing secretive tactics to intercept illegal terrorist activity. we give up NO freedoms at all by allowing them to listen in on international calls to known terrorists....... its a simple way to keep tabs on the bad guys, and had the word never gotten out about it, noone would care or be affected except the bad guys.
we have put these folks in a position of power where they can spy on anyone including us. it is noone's fault but our own. and there are much worse things they could be doing in secret that im sure ol jefferson would be a bit more agitated about. i feel no threat from any of this towards my right to protect myself and my family.
id really like to be of the priveledged few to get to know all the confidential or classified stuff that they do and know. i bet it would blow a guys mind /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Freedoms/rights same definition by me.Yes, the Homeland Security Act did flush freedoms/rights down the toilet.To me the HSA represents a much greater threat to the American citizen than it does any terrorist or terrorist organization.Anytime the feds give themselves the right to bypass a judical process it is a threat to the rights of US States and citizens.And yes,federal legislation of this type is exactly what the founders of this country feared.It just threw away another check/balance of the judical/executive branch of govrnment.
But yes,I also agree with you,its not the first and probably not the last,but I think youll find in the coming years more and more people are going to be fed up with the power abuse of the federal government.
Very soon everyone will be giving up (ok,not giving it up,but having it legislated out of existance) thier right to own a gun,whether they like it or not.The freedom/right to defend ones home and family WILL be gone.None (or not enough to matter) of the politicians in power care what thier servants will is,which is exactly what we have become.Sometime long ago,our elected officials stopped representing us and we were forced to represent them.Take it for what its worth,hopefully in ten years you can post back on here (if firearm discussion is allowed on a communication network) and tell me Im full of ****.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
biff's reloading
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2006
- Messages
- 360
i guess i just feel that there are a few things that the feds should be able to do without the oversight of the general public. hopefully the operations like this one that go on under our nose dont do harm to our rights. i cant see where this particular operation could hurt my rights or freedoms. unless there is something that we dont know about it. they have no intentions of taking my guns, or hurting any of my other rights.
im fairly conservative, and i am usually argueing your side of the coin, but this time it just seems harmless to me and anyone else who isnt trying to help a terrorist..... i just cannot imagine that the feds dont have about 15 other such op's along these same lines. i fear what the lib-dems have up their sleeve for us in these next 5 years, more than anything coming out of the "men-in-black" division of the special ops. i really hope im not off base too far on this...
how far off topic can we get in the general forum??? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
im fairly conservative, and i am usually argueing your side of the coin, but this time it just seems harmless to me and anyone else who isnt trying to help a terrorist..... i just cannot imagine that the feds dont have about 15 other such op's along these same lines. i fear what the lib-dems have up their sleeve for us in these next 5 years, more than anything coming out of the "men-in-black" division of the special ops. i really hope im not off base too far on this...
how far off topic can we get in the general forum??? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Centre Punch
Well-Known Member
Biff,
Tony Blairs Labour party won the the last general election with 26% of the vote (less then the Conservatives but thats another storey).
Tony Blair than says that he is going to retire as the labour party leader some way through this term which means he will also no longer be Prime Minister.
The Labour party will then elect a new leader who will automatically become Prime Minister.
Ian.
Tony Blairs Labour party won the the last general election with 26% of the vote (less then the Conservatives but thats another storey).
Tony Blair than says that he is going to retire as the labour party leader some way through this term which means he will also no longer be Prime Minister.
The Labour party will then elect a new leader who will automatically become Prime Minister.
Ian.
Mountainsheep
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
If you're a Dem, and reading this forum, then Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even if you are a GOP, Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative; and likewise with others of both parties. America is one of the few nations left that can be considered a democratic, republic. Voting citizens should focus on the individual issues and a candidates' position in regards to those issues, party affiliation is a concentrated effort to lump everyone into a group to sway the vote in a generalized direction, in so much as, the two party system has become nothing more than competitive fund raising. Why do you see the ideologies of both parties directed to the extreme fringe and avoiding a centrist stance? Why not give some thought to weighing a candidate's commitment to the issues and not so much to party affiliation. If the U.S. continues along these lines we will end up with a government similar to that in the U.K. (see quote below)
[ QUOTE ]
At least you guys have the chance of a vote, we in the UK are going to get a Prime Minister that no one even voted for!
[/ QUOTE ]
Dave
If you're a Dem, and reading this forum, then Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even if you are a GOP, Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative; and likewise with others of both parties. America is one of the few nations left that can be considered a democratic, republic. Voting citizens should focus on the individual issues and a candidates' position in regards to those issues, party affiliation is a concentrated effort to lump everyone into a group to sway the vote in a generalized direction, in so much as, the two party system has become nothing more than competitive fund raising. Why do you see the ideologies of both parties directed to the extreme fringe and avoiding a centrist stance? Why not give some thought to weighing a candidate's commitment to the issues and not so much to party affiliation. If the U.S. continues along these lines we will end up with a government similar to that in the U.K. (see quote below)
[ QUOTE ]
At least you guys have the chance of a vote, we in the UK are going to get a Prime Minister that no one even voted for!
[/ QUOTE ]
Dave
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
Lets Vote for Kirby we know where he stands. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Just joking but not a bad idea
J E CUSTOM
Just joking but not a bad idea
J E CUSTOM
biff's reloading
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2006
- Messages
- 360
[ QUOTE ]
Voting citizens should focus on the individual issues and a candidates' position in regards to those issues,
Dave
[/ QUOTE ]
i agree. to a point. there was a few good dems voted in in the last election. they were better than the reps they ran against, but because they won, the dems gained majority control over the house. this caused a few very bad dems to gain much more power. those few who are at the helm in the dem party are the reason i vote straight rep. in the big picture, voting for those few good dems hurt us overall because now we have extreme libs in control, and those few good dems are somewhat forced to take marching orders from the higherups in the party. they could lose their party backing.
so i think that until this way of "appointing" the power is changed, many of us will continue to vote for the party instead of the individual.
Voting citizens should focus on the individual issues and a candidates' position in regards to those issues,
Dave
[/ QUOTE ]
i agree. to a point. there was a few good dems voted in in the last election. they were better than the reps they ran against, but because they won, the dems gained majority control over the house. this caused a few very bad dems to gain much more power. those few who are at the helm in the dem party are the reason i vote straight rep. in the big picture, voting for those few good dems hurt us overall because now we have extreme libs in control, and those few good dems are somewhat forced to take marching orders from the higherups in the party. they could lose their party backing.
so i think that until this way of "appointing" the power is changed, many of us will continue to vote for the party instead of the individual.
Mountainsheep
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
so i think that until this way of "appointing" the power is changed, many of us will continue to vote for the party instead of the individual
[/ QUOTE ]
Biff,
That is the crux of my original point. Reading past the point of my post you quoted, you may note that I also don't like my elected representatives to base their vote along party lines, but to vote for the consensus that they should represent. IMO the only way to lessen the prompting of "follow the leader" is to eliminate the extremist (through the electoral process) one by one. Voting a straight ticket allows those party members with the most extreme views to garner publicity and use their notoriety to sway more centrist views away from bi-partisanship. JMHO
Dave
so i think that until this way of "appointing" the power is changed, many of us will continue to vote for the party instead of the individual
[/ QUOTE ]
Biff,
That is the crux of my original point. Reading past the point of my post you quoted, you may note that I also don't like my elected representatives to base their vote along party lines, but to vote for the consensus that they should represent. IMO the only way to lessen the prompting of "follow the leader" is to eliminate the extremist (through the electoral process) one by one. Voting a straight ticket allows those party members with the most extreme views to garner publicity and use their notoriety to sway more centrist views away from bi-partisanship. JMHO
Dave
Jimm
Well-Known Member
Ian,
Who would you choose for PM ? I agree that the system over there has great suction , but .... who is the best one ?
I ask this over here all the time . Our very own Buffbob once said that " even when you get the one you voted for you don't get what you want " Thats not an exact quote but close I think , if not, he can set me straight.
Personally , I am not concerned as to the end result , and there will be an end , then a beginning /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Jim B.
Who would you choose for PM ? I agree that the system over there has great suction , but .... who is the best one ?
I ask this over here all the time . Our very own Buffbob once said that " even when you get the one you voted for you don't get what you want " Thats not an exact quote but close I think , if not, he can set me straight.
Personally , I am not concerned as to the end result , and there will be an end , then a beginning /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Jim B.
goodgrouper
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't mind a woman for Pres. Just not that woman!
But I wouldn't worry about her. Most of her own party can't stand her either.
I wonder if Ann Coulter will be busy in '08-'12 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
But I wouldn't worry about her. Most of her own party can't stand her either.
I wonder if Ann Coulter will be busy in '08-'12 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
