Beautiful and Powerful Messages about Belonging and Love

[waveslider]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sometimes being politically correct is simply a way of being civil and well-mannered.  Also, it isn't so much individuals standing up for what they believe God's law to be, but rather trying to impose it on all others -- regardless of their religious or ideological persuasion.  We are supposed to be a pluralistic society, and we need to be tolerant of one another.  In fact, that is the gist of LDS Articles of Faith 11 & 12.

The biggest problem with the LGBTQ community is that they are going to the extreme thinking we are bigoted and biased against them personally, when in reality we are only wanting to uphold the Law of Chastity, regardless of the flavor of breaking that law, be it same sx couples or opposite sx couples who are committing adultery, or fornication. It is all against God's laws.

In my opinion the problem stems from Governmental overreach on defining morals for our society. All this wouldn't have ever even been an issue if the government never even got involved in marriages in the first place and just left it up to the churches to do. LGBTQ people could just go to a church that would perform whatever type of marriage they wanted, or they could form their own churches for that purpose if they wanted. No one would have to be forced to recognize marriages or not. Just my two cents worth anyway. I'm sorry if I have come across as uncivil and not well mannered. I am not trying to be that way, but at the same time I won't be bullied into lowering my personal moral standards either. I still think the PC movement is creating a bunch of pansies who are too scared to offend anyone so they lose whatever backbone they have. Everyone thinks that real damage comes from offending others. What ever happened to, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?"

Edited October 26, 2016 by waveslider
forgot to edit out a different thought

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, ksfisher said:

It's not a policy in my stake.  Perhaps someone at HQ got a few of the words wrong when they translated it from American to Canadian.

Canadians have a written language?

 

I thought it was so bizarre- my Father In Law was a wonderful man who was born in Canada and he loved everyone.  He was not at all racially prejudiced against blacks or any other race.

Except the French!  

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, waveslider said:

The biggest problem with the LGBTQ community is that they are going to the extreme thinking we are bigoted and biased against them personally, when in reality we are only wanting to uphold the Law of Chastity, regardless of the flavor of breaking that law, be it same sx couples or opposite sx couples who are committing adultery, or fornication. It is all against God's laws.

In my opinion the problem stems from Governmental overreach on defining morals for our society. All this wouldn't have ever even been an issue if the government never even got involved in marriages in the first place and just left it up to the churches to do. LGBTQ people could just go to a church that would perform whatever type of marriage they wanted, or they could form their own churches for that purpose if they wanted. No one would have to be forced to recognize marriages or not. Just my two cents worth anyway. I'm sorry if I have come across as uncivil and not well mannered. I am not trying to be that way, but at the same time I won't be bullied into lowering my personal moral standards either. I still think the PC movement is creating a bunch of pansies who are too scared to offend anyone so they lose whatever backbone they have. Everyone thinks that real damage comes from offending others. What ever happened to, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?"

Yeh, but the government is us, waveslider.  In Western democracies, we formulate whatever government we wish and try hard to be respectful of one another's choices.  Civil government mustn't be the vehicle of one particular point of view (religion, ideology, etc.), but must remain a neutral instrument of all the people, in all their variety, recognizing cultural diversity with deference and kindness.  If one sector of society wants civil marriage, why should that stick in our craw?  If another sector wants non-traditional marriage (SSM, polygyny, etc.), why would we demand that they cease and desist?  Name-calling is bullying, plain and simple.  A free society will certainly always have bullies, but we need not respect them.  We certainly don't need to follow them.  WWJD?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Canadians have a written language?

 

I thought it was so bizarre- my Father In Law was a wonderful man who was born in Canada and he loved everyone.  He was not at all racially prejudiced against blacks or any other race.

Except the French!  

What about First Nations?  I was quite shocked at the prejudice against that group in Calgary.  There were some major scandals with the school system imposed on their children that even beat the US. (Not saying that Americans were less prejudiced, but from what I saw Americans seemed more aware of it in general, or maybe it was just talked about more.)

[waveslider]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, but the government is us, waveslider.  In Western democracies, we formulate whatever government we wish and try hard to be respectful of one another's choices.  Civil government mustn't be the vehicle of one particular point of view (religion, ideology, etc.), but must remain a neutral instrument of all the people, in all their variety, recognizing cultural diversity with deference and kindness.  If one sector of society wants civil marriage, why should that stick in our craw?  If another sector wants non-traditional marriage (SSM, polygyny, etc.), why would we demand that they cease and desist?  Name-calling is bullying, plain and simple.  A free society will certainly always have bullies, but we need not respect them.  We certainly don't need to follow them.  WWJD?

Ideally Government is supposed to be us, here in the U.S. but unfortunately our government is full of corruption. For instance, here in Hawaii, we were the first state to be confronted with voting to change the definition of Marriage to allow, or deny, SSM, back in 2000. It wasn't even close. The people voted against the change... Years later, against the people's wishes, our Governor passed it and made it legal. In that case we the people had no say in it... More time goes by, and one judge declares it is legal for the entire U.S., again against some states wishes. "We the people," obviously means nothing to our corrupt government these days. The fact that one man can dictate for the entire U.S., what is law, doesn't fit too well with, "We the people," being the government.

If you look at the history of having to get a marriage license through the government to get married, you will see that there never was a requirement for that, until after slavery was abolished. It was legislation pushed through from the Democrats in a racist effort to stop interracial marriages from happening. I still believe that if government completely stayed out of marriage from the get go, there never would be any controversy on this issue of SSM. That said, it is too late and playing the blame game doesn't help to solve the problems caused by this, but knowing the history of it should give us a little perspective as we seek to find solutions to these very real issues that we are now confronted with and I just don't see an easy fix. Taking others' rights away in an effort to give others' theirs is always going to be a pendulum swing where someone looses out somewhere now matter which side it is currently swinging toward.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, waveslider said:

Ideally Government is supposed to be us, here in the U.S. but unfortunately our government is full of corruption. For instance, here in Hawaii, we were the first state to be confronted with voting to change the definition of Marriage to allow, or deny, SSM, back in 2000. It wasn't even close. The people voted against the change... Years later, against the people's wishes, our Governor passed it and made it legal. In that case we the people had no say in it... More time goes by, and one judge declares it is legal for the entire U.S., again against some states wishes. "We the people," obviously means nothing to our corrupt government these days. The fact that one man can dictate for the entire U.S., what is law, doesn't fit too well with, "We the people," being the government.

If you look at the history of having to get a marriage license through the government to get married, you will see that there never was a requirement for that, until after slavery was abolished. It was legislation pushed through from the Democrats in a racist effort to stop interracial marriages from happening. I still believe that if government completely stayed out of marriage from the get go, there never would be any controversy on this issue of SSM. That said, it is too late and playing the blame game doesn't help to solve the problems caused by this, but knowing the history of it should give us a little perspective as we seek to find solutions to these very real issues that we are now confronted with and I just don't see an easy fix. Taking others' rights away in an effort to give others' theirs is always going to be a pendulum swing where someone looses out somewhere now matter which side it is currently swinging toward.

I guess you don't understand American gov't, waveslider.  You elect that corrupt official, whether he be the governor, senator, or representative.  You are ultimately responsible for government management or mismanagement.  You get the form of gov't you deserve.  You and your fellow citizens need to stop bellyaching and take responsibility for your decisions.

And gov't is not static, but is a result of the decisions made by people over a period of centuries.  A key ingredient is contractual and other legal obligations entered into during that period.  These obligations include the U.S. Constitution, the state constitution of each individual state, federal and state legislation, and decisions of the judiciary in all that time.  Public opinion obviously plays a huge role, and results in changes in public policy over time.  Some of the American people may engage in denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance in the midst of political and social change, but these are merely psychological reactions to the nature of the democratic process.  It may seem messy, and you personally may not like it, but what other system would you prefer?

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you don't understand American gov't, waveslider.  You elect that corrupt official, whether he be the governor, senator, or representative.  You are ultimately responsible for government management or mismanagement.  You get the form of gov't you deserve.  You and your fellow citizens need to stop bellyaching and take responsibility for your decisions.

And gov't is not static, but is a result of the decisions made by people over a period of centuries.  A key ingredient is contractual and other legal obligations entered into during that period.  These obligations include the U.S. Constitution, the state constitution of each individual state, federal and state legislation, and decisions of the judiciary in all that time.  Public opinion obviously plays a huge role, and results in changes in public policy over time.  Some of the American people may engage in denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance in the midst of political and social change, but these are merely psychological reactions to the nature of the democratic process.  It may seem messy, and you personally may not like it, but what other system would you prefer?

I do understand that we are democratic republic and elect representatives to make decisions for us. We can't vote on every issue. (FYI I didn't elect that corrupt official, but enough of my fellow citizens of Hawaii did, so I have to accept that) Given the way things are though, is that the people who fund the campaigns are the same lobbyists that subvert the will of the people by pulling the financial strings and manipulating things in their favor as opposed to the peoples' favor. Unfortunately there is no one that runs for these offices that aren't controlled by those funding their campaigns. For evidence of this, all you have to do is add up how much candidates spend on their campaigns and how much they would actually earn if they get in office. The spending often times far outweighs the income from the job in which they are vying for. Who spends more trying to get a job, than what they will earn in that job? It either has to be someone who likes to spend money to work instead of getting paid to work, or someone who wants to fix things at a personal cost to themselves, or most likely someone who is a criminal. Statistics show that the highest spender is usually the one who gets in office. In other words it is a corrupt system even before any voting starts.

That said I don't know how to fix it and I can't think of a better system except if we were able to actually enforce the constitution upon the government, which it flagrantly ignores and those that hold office constantly break their oaths of office to keep and uphold it, and severly limit that government. The constitution is geared to regulate the government, instead they call it a living document and constantly change the meanings of it themselves. How would that be to be able to commit crimes and then have those same criminals who are committing the crimes change the laws by claiming that those laws mean something other than what they were meant to mean in the first place? Those who are claiming, with their appointed authority, what the constitution means aren't even elected into office, and therefor can't be elected out either.

Like I said earlier:

On 10/26/2016 at 8:22 AM, waveslider said:

....it is too late and playing the blame game doesn't help to solve the problems caused by this.....

IMO, I feel that America has already served it's purpose and created a pathway for the gospel to be restored, and now it is in it's death throes because it's government has become so corrupt from within. I'm just along for the ride, since I already know that my vote means basically nothing anyway, so I will cast my votes and expect nothing in return. "We the people," if you want to believe it, but those days are gone if you ask me.

Edited October 27, 2016 by waveslider
had to add words to clarify a meaning

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/27/2016 at 0:49 PM, waveslider said:

I do understand that we are democratic republic and elect representatives to make decisions for us. We can't vote on every issue. (FYI I didn't elect that corrupt official, but enough of my fellow citizens of Hawaii did, so I have to accept that) Given the way things are though, is that the people who fund the campaigns are the same lobbyists that subvert the will of the people by pulling the financial strings and manipulating things in their favor as opposed to the peoples' favor. Unfortunately there is no one that runs for these offices that aren't controlled by those funding their campaigns. For evidence of this, all you have to do is add up how much candidates spend on their campaigns and how much they would actually earn if they get in office. The spending often times far outweighs the income from the job in which they are vying for. Who spends more trying to get a job, than what they will earn in that job? It either has to be someone who likes to spend money to work instead of getting paid to work, or someone who wants to fix things at a personal cost to themselves, or most likely someone who is a criminal. Statistics show that the highest spender is usually the one who gets in office. In other words it is a corrupt system even before any voting starts.

That said I don't know how to fix it and I can't think of a better system except if we were able to actually enforce the constitution upon the government, which it flagrantly ignores and those that hold office constantly break their oaths of office to keep and uphold it, and severly limit that government. The constitution is geared to regulate the government, instead they call it a living document and constantly change the meanings of it themselves. How would that be to be able to commit crimes and then have those same criminals who are committing the crimes change the laws by claiming that those laws mean something other than what they were meant to mean in the first place? Those who are claiming, with their appointed authority, what the constitution means aren't even elected into office, and therefor can't be elected out either.

Like I said earlier:

IMO, I feel that America has already served it's purpose and created a pathway for the gospel to be restored, and now it is in it's death throes because it's government has become so corrupt from within. I'm just along for the ride, since I already know that my vote means basically nothing anyway, so I will cast my votes and expect nothing in return. "We the people," if you want to believe it, but those days are gone if you ask me.

Actually I wasn't asking you but was instead explaining the basics.  I understand the system very well, both because I have worked in government for many years and because I have a baccalaureate in political science.  Since you mistakenly believe that American democracy "is in its death throes," I don't expect you to put a high value on participatory democracy, and I don't imagine that "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" is one of your favorite films.  Due to your cynicism, it is likely that you consider your vote worthless.  Many of your fellow citizens don't even bother to vote, and those who do vote usually vote against their own interest.  You and they too often vote for corrupt or incompetent office-holders, who in turn appoint other corrupt officials.

Your comments indicate that you do not understand constitutional law, nor the value of an independent, apolitical judiciary.  The solution in some eyes is to found a Caliphate with Sharia Law, or to turn to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat -- you will certainly get things done your way, as long as your buddies are in power.  But then comes the Night of the Long Knives in which things change.  Well, at least Benito Mussolini made the trains run on time -- and we have one candidate who is even shamelessly quoting that fascist dictator.

Moderator: Do not activate Godwin's Law

[carbon dioxide]

On 10/25/2016 at 8:38 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Sometimes being politically correct is simply a way of being civil and well-mannered.  Also, it isn't so much individuals standing up for what they believe God's law to be, but rather trying to impose it on all others -- regardless of their religious or ideological persuasion.  We are supposed to be a pluralistic society, and we need to be tolerant of one another.  In fact, that is the gist of LDS Articles of Faith 11 & 12.

Sometimes but I see political correctness most of the time to be censorship and shutting down opinion.  People should be civil because that is how they want to be rather than forced on them by the opposition.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Sometimes but I see political correctness most of the time to be censorship and shutting down opinion.  People should be civil because that is how they want to be rather than forced on them by the opposition.

"forced on them"?  Howso?

[waveslider]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since you mistakenly believe that American democracy "is in its death throes

If it isn't in it's death throes, then how do you see the national debt of nearly $20,000,000,000,000.00, and counting (http://usdebtclock.org/) getting fixed? That number is so mind boggling that it is impossible to even visualize that huge amount within the mortal mind.

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You and they too often vote for corrupt or incompetent office-holders, who in turn appoint other corrupt officials.

As do you as well. With the way things are, the competent ones that even make it on the ballots have virtually no real shot at gaining that office for the lack of funding their campaigns.

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your comments indicate that you do not understand constitutional law, nor the value of an independent, apolitical judiciary.  The solution in some eyes is to found a Caliphate with Sharia Law

You're right. I don't understand constitutional law if there is a way for the Shariah to coexist with the U.S. Constitution.

I don't want to keep discussing this. I haven't studied this stuff in college like you have. I'm quite certain I don't know as much as you, but I have done a lot more than just cast votes every couple of years. I have lobbied enough trying to gain some of our constitutional rights back as the Hawaii State, Team Coordinator for http://pandaunite.org/ To learn a thing or two, so I actually do have some practical knowledge of the way our system is supposed to work. It's like pulling teeth to even get a government official to even meet with someone like me, since I don't contribute money to their campaigns. At least I am willing to give it a go, but it sure does seem like a futile attempt when my own fellow citizens think that they are doing their civic duty by just going and voting every couple of years, and then they just go back to their lazy chairs and T.V. until the next election.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

If it isn't in it's death throes, then how do you see the national debt of nearly $20,000,000,000,000.00, and counting (http://usdebtclock.org/) getting fixed? That number is so mind boggling that it is impossible to even visualize that huge amount within the mortal mind.

You are confusing large figures of the national debt with the normal function of government in America at all levels.  While it is true that a fiscally responsible federal government would deal with critical issues in a timely way (say for example avoiding the huge interest rates on our national debt service), those holding office are really no different than ordinary families in their tendency to avoid unpleasant fiscal realities -- they forget to budget intelligently, they overspend, and adopt unworkable policies.  However, they do that because the citizenry elect them to office.  Those are your fellow citizens, waveslider.  Your neighbors.  You and your buddies elect the fools and knaves who run things.  Nobody twisted your arm to do that.

And yet, America is rich enough to continue bumbling along for another century or two, and to remain the strongest economy and military power in the world.  There is no sign of any "death throes."  That is pure fiction.  It is true that there are major instabilities worldwide stemming from war, millions of refugees, and the largest national security threat of all -- galloping climate change.  America can handle the challenges.  Most other countries cannot.

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

As do you as well. With the way things are, the competent ones that even make it on the ballots have virtually no real shot at gaining that office for the lack of funding their campaigns.

That is often true, but we have no one to blame but ourselves.  We and our neighbors vote for the idiots who run the show.  We don't actually have to do that.

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

You're right. I don't understand constitutional law if there is a way for the Shariah to coexist with the U.S. Constitution.

Of course Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution cannot coexist.  You miss my point:  If you want to have gov't your way, you must seize power by force and make it bend to your will.  The temptation of dictatorship is very strong.  Real freedom scares people because it brings with it so much responsibility, plus a demand to live in a polity which cultivates and praises pluralism.  Totalitarian dictatorship brings feelings of security.  Russians, for example, miss the old Soviet days when they knew that they would have jobs, that crime was low everywhere, and that they could hold their head up in pride that their empire was a superpower.  Under KGB Colonel Putin Russia is now trading freedom for security.  The same is true in the push for a Muslim Caliphate.

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

I don't want to keep discussing this. I haven't studied this stuff in college like you have. I'm quite certain I don't know as much as you, but I have done a lot more than just cast votes every couple of years. I have lobbied enough trying to gain some of our constitutional rights back as the Hawaii State, Team Coordinator for http://pandaunite.org/ To learn a thing or two, so I actually do have some practical knowledge of the way our system is supposed to work. It's like pulling teeth to even get a government official to even meet with someone like me, since I don't contribute money to their campaigns. At least I am willing to give it a go, but it sure does seem like a futile attempt when my own fellow citizens think that they are doing their civic duty by just going and voting every couple of years, and then they just go back to their lazy chairs and T.V. until the next election.

Could be that your fellow citizens are already satisfied with how things are in America.  Their lackadaisical behavior is itself a vote for stasis, and you might want to respect that in some way.  On the other hand, being an activist is as American as apple pie.  Your only concern there should be not to get caught up on fallacious assumptions about gov't which lead you astray on (1) what the nature of our problems might be, and (2) how to deal with them.  The focus on the recurring passage of the NDAA, for example, may be misguided.  Your legislators in D.C. will consider you on the lunatic fringe if you start talking about that the way PANDA or the Patriot Coalition does.  Add to that talk of posse comitatus, and they will call security.  Not that there is not power in well-organized numbers.  Take the NRA, for example:  They have the numbers and power to influence legislation.  If you want to have influence and power, you must associate yourself with such credible groups, not the lunatic fringe.

[waveslider]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

America is rich enough to continue bumbling along for another century or two, and to remain the strongest economy and military power in the world.  There is no sign of any "death throes."  That is pure fiction.

Rich enough with what? Money that is printed, out of thin air, as fast as it can in Quantitative Easing 1,2,3, perhaps 4?..... I can't even remember how many we have been getting bailed out with, not to mention the amount of money digitally created out of thin air at each local bank with the fractional reserve banking laws? With 40% of our income getting taken in taxes, that don't even add up to enough to pay the interest on our national debt, A national GDP that is virtually zero, and more than 35% of people on welfare and growing, etc., we are fighting a losing battle as the politicians continue to grow our government even bigger, needing even more money as it grows, and governments don't make money, except by what they can extort in taxes.

"A century or two?" perhaps a decade or two if we're lucky. Our national debt more than doubled with one president, more than all the other presidents combined in more than two centuries. The debt is growing exponentially.

To put things in perspective. Let's say the national debt somehow only reaches 20 trillion dollars and then somehow miraculously stops growing, and no interest begins to accrue upon it. If we decided to pay it of by giving 1 dollar per second, 24/7, it would take roughly 634,196 years to pay it off. That number is insane! and the debt is only going to snowball extra big. Our wealth is an illusion. When the rest of the world realizes this and drops the U.S. dollar as the petrodollar, our money won't be worth the paper that it is printed upon.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

the largest national security threat of all -- galloping climate change.

I don't agree that this is the largest national security threat, although it does rank up there because of all the disinformation that is being propagandized. Everyone is preparing for a more warming planet when in fact they should be preparing for the opposite. Already many crops, world wide, have frozen and been flooded, and hail has stripped many crops as well, and not much is being told about it in the news because it doesn't fit the narrative of a warming planet. Food prices are going to rise very much this Winter, and I can't help but feel sorry for those third world countries that are relying upon grains that get imported to their countries. Lamar Smith of Texas is investigating NOAA for their fraudulent data changes they have made on global temperatures: http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Texas2011-2016.gif http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/NOAATexasMeasuredVsReported.gif

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Real freedom scares people because it brings with it so much responsibility....

Agreed! Most of the American people want security more than freedom, at least in our day and age. I am watching it happen right before my very eyes. Every time I want to travel to another state, my 4th amendment gets violated by TSA. They were put there to protect us from terrorists all the way since our original 9/11 tragedy in NY, yet they have never even caught 1 terrorist. When I talk to people about it, they say things like, "don't you want safety?" Safety from what? I think I would rather take my chances and be able to get to my plane on time without being groped, or having my kids groped.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The temptation of dictatorship is very strong.

So why on Earth do we let our president have the sole power to indefinitely detain any American individual, group, or even the entire nation for that matter, based on his personal accusation alone, with no need for any evidence, no habeas corpus, or any type of due process of law whatsoever? It is basically 100% legal for a president to turn the entire U.S. into one huge Guantanamo Bay style prison, if he so desires.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The focus on the recurring passage of the NDAA, for example, may be misguided.

It isn't the recurring passage of the NDAA that I am concerned about as a member of PANDA. It is a necessary law that allows for the funding of our military. It is the passage of the indefinite detention clauses that were slipped in there, that don't belong within the NDAA at all. I am referring to sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA for the fiscal year of 2012, which are still in full effect for whoever is the current president, unless another law gets passed to nullify that one sometime in the future.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your only concern there should be not to get caught up on fallacious assumptions about gov't which lead you astray on (1) what the nature of our problems might be, and (2) how to deal with them.

Fallacious? Vagaries in law can be twisted to mean anything they want, so it isn't fallacious. Define what, "a belligerent act," is? The government wouldn't define what that meant in front of supreme court judge, Katherine B. Forrest, who made reference to the, "Chilling effect," it has on the fifth amendment. Anyone who is accused of committing a belligerent act can be indefinitely detained, tortured or even killed, without any evidence or a trial, per sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA for 2012. Perhaps it has never been used that way (how would we really know if it has or not though?) but it doesn't bar a psycho path who becomes a president from abusing that power anytime he, or she, wishes to. What the nature of our problems concerning this are,(1) that there are sometimes terrorists in our country, and (2) instead of having to waste 15 minutes to call a judge for a search warrant and have it granted, before apprehending the accused, and then having a trial to convict that terrorist, or group of them, we have the NDAA indefinite detention clauses that allows one dictator to decide the fate of anyone he wants without one shred of evidence whatsoever.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your legislators in D.C. will consider you on the lunatic fringe if you start talking about that the way PANDA or the Patriot Coalition does.

Yeah I have dealt with that on a personal level. No one wants to believe that there is a possibility that someone will actually get in office and abuse that consolidation of power, and they don't want to put their careers on the line by fighting those in a higher office than themselves because they covet those same positions for themselves down the road. They would rather just ignore it and keep collecting their pay as they keep allowing more and more infringements upon our rights as American citizens and as human beings, in power grabs that defeat the purpose of the values of what our country was originally built upon in the first place.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Could be that your fellow citizens are already satisfied with how things are in America.

Could be that they are just apathetic. Many people say things like, "Something like that could never happen in our great country!" or, "Our country is too great for that!"

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Their lackadaisical behavior is itself a vote for stasis, and you might want to respect that in some way.  

Yeppers! Unfortunately stasis is nothing more than a false sense of security. The only thing that never changes is the concept of change itself. We are either left to be acted upon or we act. I guess it is a vote to be acted upon and I have to respect the fact that there isn't Jack I can do about it.

That all said. I think I will withdraw from this thread in an effort to stop this derailing of it. I can agree to disagree with you.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

Rich enough with what? Money that is printed, out of thin air, as fast as it can in Quantitative Easing 1,2,3, perhaps 4?..... I can't even remember how many we have been getting bailed out with, not to mention the amount of money digitally created out of thin air at each local bank with the fractional reserve banking laws? With 40% of our income getting taken in taxes, that don't even add up to enough to pay the interest on our national debt, A national GDP that is virtually zero, and more than 35% of people on welfare and growing, etc., we are fighting a losing battle as the politicians continue to grow our government even bigger, needing even more money as it grows, and governments don't make money, except by what they can extort in taxes.

"A century or two?" perhaps a decade or two if we're lucky. Our national debt more than doubled with one president, more than all the other presidents combined in more than two centuries. The debt is growing exponentially.

To put things in perspective. Let's say the national debt somehow only reaches 20 trillion dollars and then somehow miraculously stops growing, and no interest begins to accrue upon it. If we decided to pay it of by giving 1 dollar per second, 24/7, it would take roughly 634,196 years to pay it off. That number is insane! and the debt is only going to snowball extra big. Our wealth is an illusion. When the rest of the world realizes this and drops the U.S. dollar as the petrodollar, our money won't be worth the paper that it is printed upon.

I don't agree that this is the largest national security threat, although it does rank up there because of all the disinformation that is being propagandized. Everyone is preparing for a more warming planet when in fact they should be preparing for the opposite. Already many crops, world wide, have frozen and been flooded, and hail has stripped many crops as well, and not much is being told about it in the news because it doesn't fit the narrative of a warming planet. Food prices are going to rise very much this Winter, and I can't help but feel sorry for those third world countries that are relying upon grains that get imported to their countries. Lamar Smith of Texas is investigating NOAA for their fraudulent data changes they have made on global temperatures: http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Texas2011-2016.gif http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/NOAATexasMeasuredVsReported.gif

Agreed! Most of the American people want security more than freedom, at least in our day and age. I am watching it happen right before my very eyes. Every time I want to travel to another state, my 4th amendment gets violated by TSA. They were put there to protect us from terrorists all the way since our original 9/11 tragedy in NY, yet they have never even caught 1 terrorist. When I talk to people about it, they say things like, "don't you want safety?" Safety from what? I think I would rather take my chances and be able to get to my plane on time without being groped, or having my kids groped.

So why on Earth do we let our president have the sole power to indefinitely detain any American individual, group, or even the entire nation for that matter, based on his personal accusation alone, with no need for any evidence, no habeas corpus, or any type of due process of law whatsoever? It is basically 100% legal for a president to turn the entire U.S. into one huge Guantanamo Bay style prison, if he so desires.

It isn't the recurring passage of the NDAA that I am concerned about as a member of PANDA. It is a necessary law that allows for the funding of our military. It is the passage of the indefinite detention clauses that were slipped in there, that don't belong within the NDAA at all. I am referring to sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA for the fiscal year of 2012, which are still in full effect for whoever is the current president, unless another law gets passed to nullify that one sometime in the future.

Fallacious? Vagaries in law can be twisted to mean anything they want, so it isn't fallacious. Define what, "a belligerent act," is? The government wouldn't define what that meant in front of supreme court judge, Katherine B. Forrest, who made reference to the, "Chilling effect," it has on the fifth amendment. Anyone who is accused of committing a belligerent act can be indefinitely detained, tortured or even killed, without any evidence or a trial, per sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA for 2012. Perhaps it has never been used that way (how would we really know if it has or not though?) but it doesn't bar a psycho path who becomes a president from abusing that power anytime he, or she, wishes to. What the nature of our problems concerning this are,(1) that there are sometimes terrorists in our country, and (2) instead of having to waste 15 minutes to call a judge for a search warrant and have it granted, before apprehending the accused, and then having a trial to convict that terrorist, or group of them, we have the NDAA indefinite detention clauses that allows one dictator to decide the fate of anyone he wants without one shred of evidence whatsoever.

Yeah I have dealt with that on a personal level. No one wants to believe that there is a possibility that someone will actually get in office and abuse that consolidation of power, and they don't want to put their careers on the line by fighting those in a higher office than themselves because they covet those same positions for themselves down the road. They would rather just ignore it and keep collecting their pay as they keep allowing more and more infringements upon our rights as American citizens and as human beings, in power grabs that defeat the purpose of the values of what our country was originally built upon in the first place.

Could be that they are just apathetic. Many people say things like, "Something like that could never happen in our great country!" or, "Our country is too great for that!"

Yeppers! Unfortunately stasis is nothing more than a false sense of security. The only thing that never changes is the concept of change itself. We are either left to be acted upon or we act. I guess it is a vote to be acted upon and I have to respect the fact that there isn't Jack I can do about it.

That all said. I think I will withdraw from this thread in an effort to stop this derailing of it. I can agree to disagree with you.

You obviously believe very strongly in a whole series of falsehoods herewith that color all your subsequent conclusions, missing the point in nearly every case.  You likely obtain your information from narrow ideological and partisan groups (such as PANDA) which exhibit confusion as to the nature of American society and an unwillingness to accept reality.   Because your premises are false, so your conclusions here are also false: Logic 101.  One method of testing your belief in such claims as you make above would be to list the predictions which those claims entail, and then monitor the claims in real time.  It may take a decade or two for you to find that what you have believed is totally false.  An empirical test in line with Alma 32, if you will.  Another test, since you seem uninterested in scholarly analysis, would be to consult with the Lord on all such matters -- fast & pray about such overarching issues.  Find out whether it is the Lord or Satan which is the source of your fundamental attitudes and conclusions.  Then thank the Lord that most Americans do not share your dark views.