Some things our Founding Fathersprobly didnt know they were fighting for....
Only In America
1. Only in America...can a pizza get to your house faster than an ambulance.
2. Only in America...are there handicap parking places in front of a skating rink.
3. Only in America...do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.
4. Only in America...do people order double cheese burgers, large fries, and a diet Coke.
5. Only in America...do banks leave both doors to the vault open and then chain the pens to the counters.
6. Only in America...do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our useless junk in the garage.
7. Only in America...do we use answering machines to screen calls and then have call waiting so we won't miss a call from someone we didn't want to talk to in the first place.
8. Only in America...do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight.
9. Only in America...do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.
10. Only in America...do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering.
What's a Military Family Worth? by Rush Limbaugh, March 11, 2002
I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11th casualty, and those who die serving the country in uniform, are profound.
No one is really talking about it either because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th. Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country.
If you lost a family member in the September 11th attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million. If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs.
If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt. Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough.
We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over fifty years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad.
"Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."-Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.
Every time when a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low rent housing.
However our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one-time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month and most are now equal to be millionaires plus.
They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harms way receive a pension of $15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
Not to sound cold hearted but I say tough cookies to those that lost family in the WTC. They don't deserve a dime from the government.
Any of us could die at any time. There's no guarantee that our families will be taken care of unless we do it ourselves. Get some life insurance if you want your family to be taken care of should you happen to die crossing the street or blow up in the WTC.
"Not to sound cold hearted but I say tough cookies to those that lost family in the WTC."
Would you want to say that to their face?
"They don't deserve a dime from the government."
They shouldn't receive that govt. assistance that anyone else would receive, even if they qualify for something like SSI? And isn't most of that money from private donations intended for surviving families?
Were the American people too generous?
I don't think Limbaugh should compare these people with military. The military is voluntary.
I don't see why they deserve anything more than anyone else. Sure, it's a national tragedy but tragedies happen all the time. They're no different than anyone else in that regard.
They shouldn't receive that govt. assistance that anyone else would receive, even if they qualify for something like SSI?
From the Government they should get what everybody else gets when they die and that's it.
And isn't most of that money from private donations intended for surviving families?
I don't know the details. Some of the money is from private donations and some is from the Government.
Were the American people too generous?
No but I don't think those that gave expected anyone to get rich off of this and that's exactly what's happening.
I don't think Limbaugh should compare these people with military. The military is voluntary.
It is apples and oranges but in the big picture I think he has a valid point.
its a rare occasion when i'll agree with something rush spews, but that's something that i actually agree with him on. maybe its just that i'm biased because my cousin's husband is a sewer-pipe sailor, and they were on food stamps for quite a while, a concept that to me is totally ridiculous.
I think there was something like $1 billion raised, administered through the United Way. That's not just a windfall for the families, but a powerful message of national solidarity.
Collectively, the nation gave that money because they wanted the families to have it. They deserve what was intended for them
agreed, rick. any donatedmoney that was intended to get to them should get there. however, i expect, check that, demand, that the government not chip in any more than they'd chip in to my family were i killed crossing the street.
I agree the money donated was a great show of support. It gave people who felt helpless a feeling that they were at least doing something. I don't think the issue is over the private donations. The Red Cross stepped in it there I think with not all the money going to WTC victims families but that's another issue.
I think what he's saying from his article is that some of the families are saying that it's not enough. That's where I have a problem with it. The average amounts are pretty high and I wouldn't deny them a nickle of it since it was sent by folks trying to help out. But then to say that they should get more ? Huh ? It also doesn't include life insurance they might have had and benefits from employers etc. If that isn't enough money or the people didn't take care of their affairs by buying some insurance how much will be enough ?
Also I would like to know this if you would. You stated........
Were the American people too generous?
I don't think Limbaugh should compare these people with military. The military is voluntary.
Do you feel the same about Firefighters and Police officers who died ? That's voluntary too.
The average payment will be $1,185,000 (Tax free if I remember correctly).
If I do the math on $1 Billion by 3,300 killed on 9/11 that averages out to about $300,000 per person.
Now take the $1,185,000 average times 3,300 killed, it totals almost $4 Billion.
That means $3 Billion coming from the Government.
Remember the fund was set up as part of the airline deal? Basically it was set up so the airline industry wouldn't get sued. Of course who's paying? We the taxpayer.
"Do you feel the same about Firefighters and Police officers who died ? That's voluntary too. "
That's a fair question. But if they were victims like anyone else in the building, they should get a share of the donations. I think that's what the people who gave the money intended.
I am not being ridiculous. There were a couple of attorneys that were rounding up some victims from Oklahoma City to make a claim. I am not sure how far they got.
someone said "What about the 27 times it's been changed by way of Amendments? "
Now where do we start...
First of all... no generation can make laws for another generation. The Current living generation volentarily makes social contracts based on Normative decision they make.
For efficiency we may inherit the laws made by our past generation, but we can take out what we like and put in new one that we think we need. There is a process defined for this.
The Process is what our founding fathers have given us... not the laws themselves... Big difference. It is with this basic understanding they rejected Monarchy and met in Phillidelphia. (That generation made laws for that generation...gave a process for the following generation to define laws for themselves)
So, the Changing of the consitituon is the living gneration's preogative.
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?
You are rewriting history or at least ignoring it, Triumph. Your logic does hold up at all. Just because a few of the people involved in the American Revolution were not very religious does not change the fact that most were. That religious underpinning was the foundation of the government they established.
"That religious underpinning was the foundation of the government they established. "
Thats 100% incorrect.. In fact the opposite of that statement is true.
I am quite aware they (most of them)were good Christians. Proaly 98% of the population were Christians too.
If you look at the Constitution of the State of Massachussets (spl?) or Virgina. They all use the word "Christian" in their official documents.. like "you need to be a good Christian to hold the office of the Governor of the state" etc... This indicates they recognized Chritianity as the primary religion and included it in their important documents.
However, when it came to the federal constitution. You do not see any such religious let alone "Christianity" anywhere. Even the word "God" is not used in the context of religion at all. It's used roughly as an entity above all. An undefined abstract. It comes very close to someone using it in statements like "god knows"...This does not mean the person acknolwedges God as a religious entity.
So, The founding fathers may have been good Christians, however, they did not abuse their position of power to push their hidden agenda (Their evanglical obligations). They deviced and wrote a system of governance...a secular system.
Thats the truth...But Liars and Charletans are tearing this truth apart.
PS: BTW, the Federal constitution trumps the State Constitution...so a Non christian can (Theoretically) be a governor of those state..so all those evangelicals who put it in the state documents couldn't get away with their narrow objectives)
No official document says so...Not the constitution, Not the federalist papers...not the Bill of Rights...not the laws...Nothing...Nada.
So where did you read it? in your local club bulletin board?
That doesn't count dude. Its as much a Muslim country as its a Christian country or Jweish Country or a Zorastrain Country or a Jain country or a Pagan Country or a Buddist Country or a Seik Country or a Hindu Country or an Atheist country
"Are you some kind of nut that thinks people can disassoociate their "private" life from their "public" life? "
Thats the exact reason, they made sure there was Seperation of Church and State..Cause nuts like you will want to enforce their Religion on others because of their evangelical obligation... Tyrrany of the Majority.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are Islamic Countires... But Turkey is not (99% Muslims).
India is 80% Hindu but is not a Hindu Country. The only Hindu country in the world is Nepal.
Israel is a jewish Country.
America is not a Christian Country.
Think hard about all the statements I made.
If you still can't figure it out...
I suggest you read a book... 1) The Federalist Papers. 2) Democracy is America by Alexis de Toquville 3) Age of Reason - T Paine 4) Common Sense T. Paine
Thats the exact reason, they made sure there was Seperation of Church and State..Cause nuts like you will want to enforce their Religion on others because of their evangelical obligation... Tyrrany of the Majority.
The term separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The original intent was only to prevent the FEDERAL government from creating and funding a national church. It was never intended to prevent such things in the states. Read and learn, M&M. Tyranny is rule by the judiciary. The problem is liberals that either don't understand or don't care about the intended role of the judiciary.
America is not a Christian Country. It still is and probably will be for some time. Get over and be tolerant of it.
Think hard about all the statements I made. Statements made by someone that doesn't have a grasp of American history on historical topics should be ignored.
I suggest you read a book... 1) The Federalist Papers. 2) Democracy is America by Alexis de Toquville 3) Age of Reason - T Paine 4) Common Sense T. Paine
that will be a good start. I have probably read more history than you have ever dreamed of. You ignore the fact that the people that put this country together were Christians. That fundamental aspect of their life is embedded in what they did. You seem to require that they acknowledge it in writing. That isn't necessary. It is there and it is the foundation of this nation.
"ignore the fact that the people that put this country together were Christians. "
Hmmm.. I agreed with you on this... They were Christians and I did not ignore this fact, but you seemed to have ignored that. They made sure the country they formed was not used by the Christian fanatics and that eats you up from the inside.
Deal with it.
"Tyranny is rule by the judiciary"
Ah?????
ROFLMAO....
So there is no Tyranny in Iraq...No tyranny in China...No tyranny in Pakistan.
An you have never heard of Tyranny of the Majority. (Zimbabwe)
What is useless, fold, is trying to argue with you. It is difficult to argue with a man that has no clue as to the history of this country prior to Vietnam.
Hmmm.. I agreed with you on this... They were Christians and I did not ignore this fact, but you seemed to have ignored that. They made sure the country they formed was not used by the Christian fanatics and that eats you up from the inside.
You obviously misunderstand the founding father's intent. It was only to prevent the government from establishing a federal church and that is all. It had nothing to do with Christianity but with politcal power and only at the federal level.
". It was only to prevent the government from establishing a federal church and that is all."
Do you have any proof of this?
"It had nothing to do with Christianity but with politcal power and only at the federal level. "
The last I know was that States cannot pass any laws that violates the federal laws and the federal constituton. Which means the Federation is the entire United States of America. The States, the Counties...everything...so "only at the federal level" is kind of silly.
I wrote: ". It was only to prevent the government from establishing a federal church and that is all."
M&M wrote: Do you have any proof of this?
How about the fact that several of the states had recognized churches well into the 19th Century. Is that proof enough?
I wrote: "It had nothing to do with Christianity but with political power and only at the federal level. "
M&M wrote: The last I know was that States cannot pass any laws that violates the federal laws and the federal constitution. Which means the Federation is the entire United States of America. The States, the Counties...everything...so "only at the federal level" is kind of silly.
Your comment M&M shows your inadequate grasp of American history. Not until the 20th Century did it become fashionable to think this way. Fashionable thought then became law not through the legislative system but through the judicial system.
As you may know the whole concept of the federal constitution trumping state law on religious issues stems from an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. That path really got started with Supreme Court decisions in the 1930's and '40's. And of course the 14th Amendment was not enacted until the late 1860's. What the interpretation did was expand the federal power in the area based on language that could mean what the Supreme Court said only if it is taken out of historical context. In other words taken out o context of what the Amendment was meant to resolve. That is judicial tyranny.
The 14th Amendment was written to remedy a state's ability to mistreat blacks. It was never intended to allow the federal government to circumvent state's laws regarding religion. The bottom line is that the federal court's usurped power it was not supposed to have. It took issues out of the political process something that liberals say they support. However, that usually doesn't get them what they want. If the liberals want the constitution to reflect what they want they should use the political process instead of taking certain issues out of that process.
"The position of the federal government at this time was greatly strengthened by the declarations of the Supreme Court. The convinced Federalist, John Marshall of Virginia, was made Chief Justice in 1801 and held that office until his death in 1835. The court which had been weak before his administration he transformed into a powerful tribunal, occupying a position as important as that of Congress or the President. In a succession of historic decisions, Marshall never deviated from one cardinal principle - the sovereignty of the federal government.
"Among the most famous of his opinions was rendered in the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 when he decisively established the right of the Supreme Court to review any law of Congress or of a state legislature." "
Once in power, Jackson vigorously carried these ideas into practice. He dealt sternly with South Carolina on the question of the protective tariff of 1828. All the benefits of protection appeared to be going to the northern manufacturers, while southern planters bore the burden of higher prices. As tariff schedules rose by successive Congressional acts, the country as a whole grew richer but South Carolina declined in prosperity. The South Carolinians had hoped that Jackson would use his power as President for the modification of the tariff which they had long opposed. This expectation proved vain, for he did not share the southern view of the unconstitutionality of protection. When Congress enacted a new tariff law in 1832, Jackson signed it without hesitation. The people of South Carolina organized the "State Rights Party" which represented those who believed in the principle of nullification -that a delegate convention within a state could adjudge an act of Congress to be unwarranted by the Constitution, that act becoming null and void within the nullifying state. The new state legislature, elected on a platform favoring the nullification idea, adopted an "Ordinance of Nullification" by an overwhelming vote. This measure declared the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and void within the state and required all state officials to take an oath to obey the Ordinance. It threatened secession from the Union should Congress pass any law for the employment of force against the state.
In November 1832, Jackson sent seven small naval vessels and a ship-of-war to Charleston with orders to be ready for instant action. On December 10, he issued a resounding proclamation against the nullifiers. South Carolina, the President declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Like Daniel Webster, a leading statesman of the day,he affirmed that instead of being "a compact between sovereign states," the United States was "a government in which the people of all the states, collectively, are represented."
so according to you, States can pass laws that violates or in contrary to the Federal laws. And the State laws prevail over the federal laws. No. That is not what I wrote. I can see you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge what it is I did write.
"Among the most famous of his opinions was rendered in the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 when he decisively established the right of the Supreme Court to review any law of Congress or of a state legislature. " A blanket statement that doesn't necessarily reflect reality. The federal courts cannot review state laws unless the law involves fedral issues. Granted with the growth of the federal government into every aspect of life this is happening less and less.
Once in power, Jackson vigorously carried these ideas into practice. He dealt sternly with South Carolina on the question of the protective tariff of 1828. Yes he did. But the issue almost started a civil war that had nothing to do with slavery.
The people of South Carolina organized the "State Rights Party" which represented those who believed in the principle of nullification -that a delegate convention within a state could adjudge an act of Congress to be unwarranted by the Constitution, that act becoming null and void within the nullifying state. The new state legislature, elected on a platform favoring the nullification idea, adopted an "Ordinance of Nullification" by an overwhelming vote. This measure declared the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and void within the state and required all state officials to take an oath to obey the Ordinance. It threatened secession from the Union should Congress pass any law for the employment of force against the state.
In November 1832, Jackson sent seven small naval vessels and a ship-of-war to Charleston with orders to be ready for instant action. On December 10, he issued a resounding proclamation against the nullifiers. South Carolina, the President declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Like Daniel Webster, a leading statesman of the day, he affirmed that instead of being "a compact between sovereign states," the United States was "a government in which the people of all the states, collectively, are represented." And your point is what? Nullification was going on even in the north. Many northern states ignored the fugitive slave laws for example. But of course that isn't the point. The point was that the states had much more power before the civil war and before the misapplication of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court beginning in the 1930's and 40's. You mention tariffs but you need to realize that the federal government was specifically given the power over interstate commerce. Jackson's position on the tariff was supported by the Constitution. However, that does not mean that every issue was intended to be governed by federal law. My point was this: that the Constitution was never intended to prevent states from promoting or advocating religion. The 14th Amendment was intended only to prevent states from discriminating against blacks. It was not intended as a mechanism for the federal government prohibit states from promoting or advocating religion. The Court's took the 14th amendment out of historical context. The Court interpreted the language in the broadest manner possible and came to the conclusion that the amendment could mean that states were limited in their ability as was Congress from "establishing" a religion. However, that was not the intent when the document was written and all that you have to do is to review the history of the states after the passage of the Constitution.
Now some people point to Virginia and try to claim that since Virginia imposed similar language on the state government as was imposed by the Constitution then the intent was to also limit state power in this area. However, all of those arguments cannot be supported because if the Constitution had been intended to prevent state action in that area there would not have been a reason for Virginia to include such language under that state's law.
The fact is that when the Cosntitution was established and passed its intent was to try to balance the power of the federal government with the power of the state governments. It was not intended to supersede state law in all aspects but in only those specific areas set forth in the Cosntitution.
Jethro, I agree, that the Power not stated in the Consititution by default, lies with the States and the people. America is a Bottoms up country. States come before the Federation.
However, The State cannot pass laws that is contrary to the constitution. The Federal Constitution was ratified by all the signatories...the 13 states and all the other states that joined the union later. Hence the power of the Constitution was given by the State and its people to the federation to begin with.
So the State Constitution of Mass. stating only a Christian can be a Governor of the state is null and void cause that would violate the Federal Constituion.
However, The State cannot pass laws that is contrary to the constitution. The Federal Constitution was ratified by all the signatories...the 13 states and all the other states that joined the union later. Hence the power of the Constitution was given by the State and its people to the federation to begin with. Again I don't believe you got my point. I agree that the states could never supersede those powers specifically given the feds. It was also true when the constitution was ratified that the feds could not supersede those powers left to the states. My point is that since the 1930's and 40's the Supreme Court has allowed the feds to encroach on those powers left to the states. They have done so by interpreting the 14th amendment to allow the federal government such power over all sorts of things including the states ability to act on religion. My further point was that the intent of the 14th amendement was only to prevent states from discriminating against blacks and to try to force the states to treat them equally. The Court in the '30's and '40's expanded their interpretation of the constituion to allow the feds to prevent such things as school prayer. This was not the intention of the framers of the constitution. it was also not the intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment. It was simply a federal power grab. The Court should have taken into the historical record but instead ignored history and interpeted the words on their face without consideration of the purpose of the amendment.
So the State Constitution of Mass. stating only a Christian can be a Governor of the state is null and void cause that would violate the Federal Constituion. I agree that is the result of the Court's interpretation of the 14th amendment. My point was that was not the intent of the drafters of the constitution nor was it the intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment. School prayer was meant to be left to the states and the qualifications for a govenor were to be left to the states. We have gotten federal interference in these issues either through ignorance of the historical record, which I doubt, or judical legislation.
The First Amendment :"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. "
So, as per you, The States can go on passing laws about Christians have to be Governors, Prayers in School (most likely Christian Prayers). etc. etc. The 1st Ammendment does not say anything about the State Legistlatures..So it does not apply to them.eh? LOL.. So I guess the State Legistlatures can pass laws banning free speech too.
So, What is it that the Congress cannot pass again?
After Lincoln's death would anyone in the country had a taste for more death?
Ask Mary Surratt. No, wait she was hanged.
Some things our Founding Fathersprobly didnt know they were fighting for....
Only In America
1. Only in America...can a pizza get to your house faster than an ambulance.
2. Only in America...are there handicap parking places in front of a skating rink.
3. Only in America...do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.
4. Only in America...do people order double cheese burgers, large fries, and a diet Coke.
5. Only in America...do banks leave both doors to the vault open and then chain the pens to the counters.
6. Only in America...do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our useless junk in the garage.
7. Only in America...do we use answering machines to screen calls and then have call waiting so we won't miss a call from someone we didn't want to talk to in the first place.
8. Only in America...do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight.
9. Only in America...do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.
10. Only in America...do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering.
Is this Fair? - This is interesting
What's a Military Family Worth?
by Rush Limbaugh, March 11, 2002
I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11th casualty, and those who die serving the country in uniform, are profound.
No one is really talking about it either because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th. Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country.
If you lost a family member in the September 11th attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million. If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs.
If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt. Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough.
We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over fifty years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad.
"Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."-Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.
Every time when a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low rent housing.
However our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one-time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month and most are now equal to be
millionaires plus.
They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harms way receive a pension of $15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
Not to sound cold hearted but I say tough cookies to those that lost family in the WTC. They don't deserve a dime from the government.
Any of us could die at any time. There's no guarantee that our families will be taken care of unless we do it ourselves. Get some life insurance if you want your family to be taken care of should you happen to die crossing the street or blow up in the WTC.
"Not to sound cold hearted but I say tough cookies to those that lost family in the WTC."
Would you want to say that to their face?
"They don't deserve a dime from the government."
They shouldn't receive that govt. assistance that anyone else would receive, even if they qualify for something like SSI? And isn't most of that money from private donations intended for surviving families?
Were the American people too generous?
I don't think Limbaugh should compare these people with military. The military is voluntary.
Would you want to say that to their face?
I wouldn't want to but I could.
I don't see why they deserve anything more than anyone else. Sure, it's a national tragedy but tragedies happen all the time. They're no different than anyone else in that regard.
They shouldn't receive that govt. assistance that anyone else would receive, even if they qualify for something like SSI?
From the Government they should get what everybody else gets when they die and that's it.
And isn't most of that money from private donations intended for surviving families?
I don't know the details. Some of the money is from private donations and some is from the Government.
Were the American people too generous?
No but I don't think those that gave expected anyone to get rich off of this and that's exactly what's happening.
I don't think Limbaugh should compare these people with military. The military is voluntary.
It is apples and oranges but in the big picture I think he has a valid point.
"I wouldn't want to but I could."
I don't doubt it for a minute.,
well, jt, if you couldn't, i'd say it for you.
I don't doubt it for a minute.
Rick, read the edits to my last post.
Do you think people deserve to get rich off this tragedy?
Thanks Ares. :-)
you're welcome, jt.
its a rare occasion when i'll agree with something rush spews, but that's something that i actually agree with him on. maybe its just that i'm biased because my cousin's husband is a sewer-pipe sailor, and they were on food stamps for quite a while, a concept that to me is totally ridiculous.
I think there was something like $1 billion raised, administered through the United Way. That's not just a windfall for the families, but a powerful message of national solidarity.
Collectively, the nation gave that money because they wanted the families to have it. They deserve what was intended for them
agreed, rick. any donatedmoney that was intended to get to them should get there. however, i expect, check that, demand, that the government not chip in any more than they'd chip in to my family were i killed crossing the street.
Come to think of it, I think there were some extra funds set aside from the govt., too, but I ain't going to grouse about it.
Rick,
I agree the money donated was a great show of support. It gave people who felt helpless a feeling that they were at least doing something. I don't think the issue is over the private donations. The Red Cross stepped in it there I think with not all the money going to WTC victims families but that's another issue.
I think what he's saying from his article is that some of the families are saying that it's not enough. That's where I have a problem with it. The average amounts are pretty high and I wouldn't deny them a nickle of it since it was sent by folks trying to help out. But then to say that they should get more ? Huh ? It also doesn't include life insurance they might have had and benefits from employers etc. If that isn't enough money or the people didn't take care of their affairs by buying some insurance how much will be enough ?
Also I would like to know this if you would. You stated........
Do you feel the same about Firefighters and Police officers who died ? That's voluntary too.
The average payment will be $1,185,000 (Tax free if I remember correctly).
If I do the math on $1 Billion by 3,300 killed on 9/11 that averages out to about $300,000 per person.
Now take the $1,185,000 average times 3,300 killed, it totals almost $4 Billion.
That means $3 Billion coming from the Government.
Remember the fund was set up as part of the airline deal? Basically it was set up so the airline industry wouldn't get sued. Of course who's paying? We the taxpayer.
I think it's disgusting.
"Do you feel the same about Firefighters and Police officers who died ? That's voluntary too. "
That's a fair question. But if they were victims like anyone else in the building, they should get a share of the donations. I think that's what the people who gave the money intended.
Why shouldn't the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing not get a share? Because they are midwesterners?
Don't be ridiculuous, jethro.
I think you can gauge where the money was intended to go.
Why shouldn't the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing not get a share?
Because the whole thing is based on emotion instead of logic.
Don't be ridiculuous, jethro.
I am not being ridiculous. There were a couple of attorneys that were rounding up some victims from Oklahoma City to make a claim. I am not sure how far they got.
You can sue a ham sandwich, jethro. Doesn't mean you'll get anything
Guess there's someone suing a sandwich now, come to think of it.
LOL!
Good one Rick.
I mean it. I'm not being sarcastic.
And who would have thought that a woman that spilled a little hot coffee would win her case?
I like this MB Thread...
Hmmm....
Lets see...
someone said "What about the 27 times it's been changed by way of Amendments? "
Now where do we start...
First of all... no generation can make laws for another generation. The Current living generation volentarily makes social contracts based on Normative decision they make.
For efficiency we may inherit the laws made by our past generation, but we can take out what we like and put in new one that we think we need. There is a process defined for this.
The Process is what our founding fathers have given us... not the laws themselves... Big difference. It is with this basic understanding they rejected Monarchy and met in Phillidelphia. (That generation made laws for that generation...gave a process for the following generation to define laws for themselves)
So, the Changing of the consitituon is the living gneration's preogative.
jethro bodine 6/28/02 12:25pm
Look at this one...
The Religious right would like the rewrite history..but no dice.
Lets see what the father of the American Revolution has to say about religion.
Thomas Paine himself - The Age of Reason
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?
"
You are rewriting history or at least ignoring it, Triumph. Your logic does hold up at all. Just because a few of the people involved in the American Revolution were not very religious does not change the fact that most were. That religious underpinning was the foundation of the government they established.
jethro bodine 9/6/02 10:04am
"That religious underpinning was the foundation of the government they established. "
Thats 100% incorrect.. In fact the opposite of that statement is true.
I am quite aware they (most of them)were good Christians. Proaly 98% of the population were Christians too.
If you look at the Constitution of the State of Massachussets (spl?) or Virgina. They all use the word "Christian" in their official documents.. like "you need to be a good Christian to hold the office of the Governor of the state" etc... This indicates they recognized Chritianity as the primary religion and included it in their important documents.
However, when it came to the federal constitution. You do not see any such religious let alone "Christianity" anywhere. Even the word "God" is not used in the context of religion at all. It's used roughly as an entity above all. An undefined abstract. It comes very close to someone using it in statements like "god knows"...This does not mean the person acknolwedges God as a religious entity.
So, The founding fathers may have been good Christians, however, they did not abuse their position of power to push their hidden agenda (Their evanglical obligations). They deviced and wrote a system of governance...a secular system.
Thats the truth...But Liars and Charletans are tearing this truth apart.
PS: BTW, the Federal constitution trumps the State Constitution...so a Non christian can (Theoretically) be a governor of those state..so all those evangelicals who put it in the state documents couldn't get away with their narrow objectives)
M&M wrote: I am quite aware they (most of them)were good Christians. Proaly 98% of the population were Christians too.
Then you agree with me. Now just move on to the next topic.
I hope you are addressing M&M, fold, because that was his number.
'Bill - Fold' 9/10/02 5:37am
I don't know if 98% were Christians or even if the founding fathers were "Good" Christians.
I was making a point...They could have been the above two...still it does not make the country a Christian country. It is a secular country.
This was a Christain country when it was founded. You can keep denying it all you want that, however, does not change the facts.
jethro bodine 9/11/02 11:11am
No official document says so...Not the constitution, Not the federalist papers...not the Bill of Rights...not the laws...Nothing...Nada.
So where did you read it? in your local club bulletin board?
That doesn't count dude. Its as much a Muslim country as its a Christian country or Jweish Country or a Zorastrain Country or a Jain country or a Pagan Country or a Buddist Country or a Seik Country or a Hindu Country or an Atheist country
;)
You apparently have no grasp of history. Have you ever picked up a book?
"Are you some kind of nut that thinks people can disassoociate their "private" life from their "public" life? "
Thats the exact reason, they made sure there was Seperation of Church and State..Cause nuts like you will want to enforce their Religion on others because of their evangelical obligation... Tyrrany of the Majority.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are Islamic Countires... But Turkey is not (99% Muslims).
India is 80% Hindu but is not a Hindu Country. The only Hindu country in the world is Nepal.
Israel is a jewish Country.
America is not a Christian Country.
Think hard about all the statements I made.
If you still can't figure it out...
I suggest you read a book... 1) The Federalist Papers. 2) Democracy is America by Alexis de Toquville 3) Age of Reason - T Paine 4) Common Sense T. Paine
that will be a good start.
Thats the exact reason, they made sure there was Seperation of Church and State..Cause nuts like you will want to enforce their Religion on others because of their evangelical obligation... Tyrrany of the Majority.
The term separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The original intent was only to prevent the FEDERAL government from creating and funding a national church. It was never intended to prevent such things in the states. Read and learn, M&M. Tyranny is rule by the judiciary. The problem is liberals that either don't understand or don't care about the intended role of the judiciary.
America is not a Christian Country. It still is and probably will be for some time. Get over and be tolerant of it.
Think hard about all the statements I made. Statements made by someone that doesn't have a grasp of American history on historical topics should be ignored.
I suggest you read a book... 1) The Federalist Papers. 2) Democracy is America by Alexis de Toquville 3) Age of Reason - T Paine 4) Common Sense T. Paine
that will be a good start. I have probably read more history than you have ever dreamed of. You ignore the fact that the people that put this country together were Christians. That fundamental aspect of their life is embedded in what they did. You seem to require that they acknowledge it in writing. That isn't necessary. It is there and it is the foundation of this nation.
"ignore the fact that the people that put this country together were Christians. "
Hmmm.. I agreed with you on this... They were Christians and I did not ignore this fact, but you seemed to have ignored that. They made sure the country they formed was not used by the Christian fanatics and that eats you up from the inside.
Deal with it.
"Tyranny is rule by the judiciary"
Ah?????
ROFLMAO....
So there is no Tyranny in Iraq...No tyranny in China...No tyranny in Pakistan.
An you have never heard of Tyranny of the Majority. (Zimbabwe)
What is useless, fold, is trying to argue with you. It is difficult to argue with a man that has no clue as to the history of this country prior to Vietnam.
Hmmm.. I agreed with you on this... They were Christians and I did not ignore this fact, but you seemed to have ignored that. They made sure the country they formed was not used by the Christian fanatics and that eats you up from the inside.
You obviously misunderstand the founding father's intent. It was only to prevent the government from establishing a federal church and that is all. It had nothing to do with Christianity but with politcal power and only at the federal level.
". It was only to prevent the government from establishing a federal church and that is all."
Do you have any proof of this?
"It had nothing to do with Christianity but with politcal power and only at the federal level. "
The last I know was that States cannot pass any laws that violates the federal laws and the federal constituton. Which means the Federation is the entire United States of America. The States, the Counties...everything...so "only at the federal level" is kind of silly.
I wrote: ". It was only to prevent the government from establishing a federal church and that is all."
M&M wrote: Do you have any proof of this?
How about the fact that several of the states had recognized churches well into the 19th Century. Is that proof enough?
I wrote: "It had nothing to do with Christianity but with political power and only at the federal level. "
M&M wrote: The last I know was that States cannot pass any laws that violates the federal laws and the federal constitution. Which means the Federation is the entire United States of America. The States, the Counties...everything...so "only at the federal level" is kind of silly.
Your comment M&M shows your inadequate grasp of American history. Not until the 20th Century did it become fashionable to think this way. Fashionable thought then became law not through the legislative system but through the judicial system.
As you may know the whole concept of the federal constitution trumping state law on religious issues stems from an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. That path really got started with Supreme Court decisions in the 1930's and '40's. And of course the 14th Amendment was not enacted until the late 1860's. What the interpretation did was expand the federal power in the area based on language that could mean what the Supreme Court said only if it is taken out of historical context. In other words taken out o context of what the Amendment was meant to resolve. That is judicial tyranny.
The 14th Amendment was written to remedy a state's ability to mistreat blacks. It was never intended to allow the federal government to circumvent state's laws regarding religion. The bottom line is that the federal court's usurped power it was not supposed to have. It took issues out of the political process something that liberals say they support. However, that usually doesn't get them what they want. If the liberals want the constitution to reflect what they want they should use the political process instead of taking certain issues out of that process.
jethro bodine 9/17/02 9:39am
so according to you, States can pass laws that violates or in contrary to the Federal laws. And the State laws prevail over the federal laws.
Hmmmm. Thats what I understand from your post.
So as per the State of Mass, only a Christian can become a Governor.
Hmmm... Interesting , how ignorent some citizens are...
I Propose, we should replace these citizens with immigrants.
;)
"The position of the federal government at this time was greatly strengthened by the declarations of the Supreme Court. The convinced Federalist, John Marshall of Virginia, was made Chief Justice in 1801 and held that office until his death in 1835. The court which had been weak before his administration he transformed into a powerful tribunal, occupying a position as important as that of Congress or the President. In a succession of historic decisions, Marshall never deviated from one cardinal principle - the sovereignty of the federal government.
"Among the most famous of his opinions was rendered in the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 when he decisively established the right of the Supreme Court to review any law of Congress or of a state legislature."
"
Once in power, Jackson vigorously carried these ideas into practice. He dealt sternly with South Carolina on the question of the protective tariff of 1828. All the benefits of protection appeared to be going to the northern manufacturers, while southern planters bore the burden of higher prices. As tariff schedules rose by successive Congressional acts, the country as a whole grew richer but South Carolina declined in prosperity. The South Carolinians had hoped that Jackson would use his power as President for the modification of the tariff which they had long opposed. This expectation proved vain, for he did not share the southern view of the unconstitutionality of protection. When Congress enacted a new tariff law in 1832, Jackson signed it without hesitation. The people of South Carolina organized the "State Rights Party" which represented those who believed in the principle of nullification -that a delegate convention within a state could adjudge an act of Congress to be unwarranted by the Constitution, that act becoming null and void within the nullifying state. The new state legislature, elected on a platform favoring the nullification idea, adopted an "Ordinance of Nullification" by an overwhelming vote. This measure declared the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and void within the state and required all state officials to take an oath to obey the Ordinance. It threatened secession from the Union should Congress pass any law for the employment of force against the state.
In November 1832, Jackson sent seven small naval vessels and a ship-of-war to Charleston with orders to be ready for instant action. On December 10, he issued a resounding proclamation against the nullifiers. South Carolina, the President declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Like Daniel Webster, a leading statesman of the day,he affirmed that instead of being "a compact between sovereign states," the United States was "a government in which the people of all the states, collectively, are represented."
It's good to have you around M&M
so according to you, States can pass laws that violates or in contrary to the Federal laws. And the State laws prevail over the federal laws. No. That is not what I wrote. I can see you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge what it is I did write.
"Among the most famous of his opinions was rendered in the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 when he decisively established the right of the Supreme Court to review any law of Congress or of a state legislature. " A blanket statement that doesn't necessarily reflect reality. The federal courts cannot review state laws unless the law involves fedral issues. Granted with the growth of the federal government into every aspect of life this is happening less and less.
Once in power, Jackson vigorously carried these ideas into practice. He dealt sternly with South Carolina on the question of the protective tariff of 1828. Yes he did. But the issue almost started a civil war that had nothing to do with slavery.
The people of South Carolina organized the "State Rights Party" which represented those who believed in the principle of nullification -that a delegate convention within a state could adjudge an act of Congress to be unwarranted by the Constitution, that act becoming null and void within the nullifying state. The new state legislature, elected on a platform favoring the nullification idea, adopted an "Ordinance of Nullification" by an overwhelming vote. This measure declared the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and void within the state and required all state officials to take an oath to obey the Ordinance. It threatened secession from the Union should Congress pass any law for the employment of force against the state.
In November 1832, Jackson sent seven small naval vessels and a ship-of-war to Charleston with orders to be ready for instant action. On December 10, he issued a resounding proclamation against the nullifiers. South Carolina, the President declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Like Daniel Webster, a leading statesman of the day, he affirmed that instead of being "a compact between sovereign states," the United States was "a government in which the people of all the states, collectively, are represented." And your point is what? Nullification was going on even in the north. Many northern states ignored the fugitive slave laws for example. But of course that isn't the point. The point was that the states had much more power before the civil war and before the misapplication of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court beginning in the 1930's and 40's. You mention tariffs but you need to realize that the federal government was specifically given the power over interstate commerce. Jackson's position on the tariff was supported by the Constitution. However, that does not mean that every issue was intended to be governed by federal law. My point was this: that the Constitution was never intended to prevent states from promoting or advocating religion. The 14th Amendment was intended only to prevent states from discriminating against blacks. It was not intended as a mechanism for the federal government prohibit states from promoting or advocating religion. The Court's took the 14th amendment out of historical context. The Court interpreted the language in the broadest manner possible and came to the conclusion that the amendment could mean that states were limited in their ability as was Congress from "establishing" a religion. However, that was not the intent when the document was written and all that you have to do is to review the history of the states after the passage of the Constitution.
Now some people point to Virginia and try to claim that since Virginia imposed similar language on the state government as was imposed by the Constitution then the intent was to also limit state power in this area. However, all of those arguments cannot be supported because if the Constitution had been intended to prevent state action in that area there would not have been a reason for Virginia to include such language under that state's law.
The fact is that when the Cosntitution was established and passed its intent was to try to balance the power of the federal government with the power of the state governments. It was not intended to supersede state law in all aspects but in only those specific areas set forth in the Cosntitution.
THX 1138 9/22/02 7:15pm
Thanks THX.
BTW. Why the THX? you into Home Theater or something? I am a HT buff myself.
jethro bodine 9/23/02 7:58am
Jethro, I agree, that the Power not stated in the Consititution by default, lies with the States and the people. America is a Bottoms up country. States come before the Federation.
However, The State cannot pass laws that is contrary to the constitution. The Federal Constitution was ratified by all the signatories...the 13 states and all the other states that joined the union later. Hence the power of the Constitution was given by the State and its people to the federation to begin with.
So the State Constitution of Mass. stating only a Christian can be a Governor of the state is null and void cause that would violate the Federal Constituion.
Why the THX?
From the George Lucas movie, THX 1138.
However, The State cannot pass laws that is contrary to the constitution. The Federal Constitution was ratified by all the signatories...the 13 states and all the other states that joined the union later. Hence the power of the Constitution was given by the State and its people to the federation to begin with. Again I don't believe you got my point. I agree that the states could never supersede those powers specifically given the feds. It was also true when the constitution was ratified that the feds could not supersede those powers left to the states. My point is that since the 1930's and 40's the Supreme Court has allowed the feds to encroach on those powers left to the states. They have done so by interpreting the 14th amendment to allow the federal government such power over all sorts of things including the states ability to act on religion. My further point was that the intent of the 14th amendement was only to prevent states from discriminating against blacks and to try to force the states to treat them equally. The Court in the '30's and '40's expanded their interpretation of the constituion to allow the feds to prevent such things as school prayer. This was not the intention of the framers of the constitution. it was also not the intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment. It was simply a federal power grab. The Court should have taken into the historical record but instead ignored history and interpeted the words on their face without consideration of the purpose of the amendment.
So the State Constitution of Mass. stating only a Christian can be a Governor of the state is null and void cause that would violate the Federal Constituion. I agree that is the result of the Court's interpretation of the 14th amendment. My point was that was not the intent of the drafters of the constitution nor was it the intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment. School prayer was meant to be left to the states and the qualifications for a govenor were to be left to the states. We have gotten federal interference in these issues either through ignorance of the historical record, which I doubt, or judical legislation.
jethro bodine 9/24/02 11:30am
The First Amendment :"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.
"
So, as per you, The States can go on passing laws about Christians have to be Governors, Prayers in School (most likely Christian Prayers). etc. etc. The 1st Ammendment does not say anything about the State Legistlatures..So it does not apply to them.eh? LOL.. So I guess the State Legistlatures can pass laws banning free speech too.
So, What is it that the Congress cannot pass again?