I dunno . . . -- Notes from Zarahemla Political Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:42:02 09/22/06 Fri
Author: Jay
Subject: I dunno . . .
In reply to: Cricket 's message, "WARNING!!! Snark Alert" on 16:52:22 09/22/06 Fri

. . . what my father thinks of this case, but I have a guess. You see, my father was a lifer with the federal government. He worked for the Dept. of Interior and managed a bird refuge for most of my childhood. You probably know of the Bear River Bird Refuge. As a kid, I thought it was great. But after I gained an understanding of the Constitution (thanks to President Benson), it had a totally different perspective of it. The federal government has no right, as I understand it, to own land for things such as forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, parks, etc. So my father was ignorantly involved in something that as an adult, I find morally wrong. But I have never said this to him, nor do I plan on ever saying it. He's in his 90th year and if he knew how I really feel about this, it would needlessly upset him. But the problem, as you hit right on the head, is that it's not about principles, it's about feelings. I fear that my dad would be siding with David Souter. Perhaps you've heard me talk about this before, but one of my favorite lines from a movie came from Robin Williams in Popeye. Olive Oyl won a bunch of money gambling on horses. When Popeye confronted her about it, saying that it was "ill gotten gains" she replied that it wasn't ill gotten gains because the money would be used to buy them food and clothes and other necessities. To which Popeye replied, "That money is ill gotten gains and it doesn't matter what you say, wrong is still wrong, even if it helps you." IMHO, they should take the five that voted in favor of the City and horsewhip them all. And then have them impeached and removed from office.

Interestingly, the Republican appointees have not turned out to be as conservative as they pretended to be when appointed as justices. One of the things that really gets under my skin is the abortion issue. There's a line in the sand and it's assumed that Republicans are generally pro life, while Democrats are generally pro choice. Yet, Rowe v. Wade was a 7-2 vote (if my memory serves me correctly) and 5 of the 7 votes were Republican president nominees. Go figure. It was the Republicans who we have to thank for that decision.

Another thing that has really been distorted is the "general welfare" idea. The preamble says to "promote" the general welfare and to "provide" for the common defense. Why the distinction? Why doesn't it say to "provide" the general welfare? Also, what is "general" welfare. Doesn't "general" mean that it applies equally to everyone, while "special" welfare would mean that it applies only to certain groups? Makes sense to me.

Okay, off my soap box.

Jay

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

that's pretty intense -- Cricket, 19:44:55 09/22/06 Fri
I don't know Jay... -- Chuck in ND, 16:29:02 09/23/06 Sat
- Uh huh . . . -- Jay, 20:54:41 09/24/06 Sun