I'm trying to make my 5120 look and sound like a '58 6120. My favorite "Stars and Stripes" has 48 Stars.
Ah,....if we could all go back then....and knowing what we know today....we would.....
Edit: OK; Alaska and Hawaii could stay, but otherwise......we would....
Whatever about our leaders, I just hope our posters use their common sense not to start another 'An Inconvenient Truth' thread.
I'm generally to the left, at least socially, which is unusual for someone in law enforcement. To tell the truth, though, my biggest gripe is corruption, and for that reason we need to change. In my opinion, we're suffering under the most corrupt -morally and politically - administration in history. I live in Illinois - th most corrupt state in the country. I work in Cook County - the most corrupt county in the most corrupt state.
6 months ago I finished a federal lawsuit against my own Department - I'm not at all proud of it, but it happened because I found corruption, tried to report it and no one listened. And no one cared.
Being the Easter bunny I am, I really thought cops and judges and lawyers and doctors and teachers and politicians were supposed to be honest. Right now, this country has the same level of integrity that we (in my profession) used to talk about with respect to Mexico.
It has to stop. We have to recapture the moral highground or the advances that Repubicans and Democrats both claim they want will be absolutely meaningless.
So there.
Anybody want to bring up politics again???
Anyone who wants to be president probably shouldn't be.
I feel you should devote a year of your life to government service, even if it's mopping floors at a VA hospital, or picking up trash on city streets, just to be allowed to vote.
TAG4---Ike was a Republican (so was Abe)
Bear---what have you got agoinst veterans? Other than that, I agree with a lot of your points.
I'm glad this is a "refined" discussion. 
cielski said: Bear---what have you got agoinst veterans? Other than that, I agree with a lot of your points.
Absolutely nothing, it is strictly a savings for the tax payer. Veterans have already been through basic training and know how to shoot. I love our veterans and always stop and say "Thank You" to every person I see in uniform. Anybody willing to die for me is OKAY in my book.
gretschiam said: I'm generally to the left, at least socially, which is unusual for someone in law enforcement. To tell the truth, though, my biggest gripe is corruption, and for that reason we need to change. In my opinion, we're suffering under the most corrupt -morally and politically - administration in history. I live in Illinois - th most corrupt state in the country. I work in Cook County - the most corrupt county in the most corrupt state.6 months ago I finished a federal lawsuit against my own Department - I'm not at all proud of it, but it happened because I found corruption, tried to report it and no one listened. And no one cared.
Being the Easter bunny I am, I really thought cops and judges and lawyers and doctors and teachers and politicians were supposed to be honest. Right now, this country has the same level of integrity that we (in my profession) used to talk about with respect to Mexico.
God Bless you SIR!!! We need more people like you. If you're ever in the Louisville area and need a place to crash, a good meal, and a guitar to play, my door will always be open to you.
This is a good discussion, and I'm agreeing and disagreeing with points from both 'sides.' I just want you all to keep it respectful, but so far so good generally.
Here's my entire political philosophy, and really my entire philosophy on life:
It should be legal unless it harms or can harm someone else.
Vague enough for you? Well, that's kinda the point. It's up to the individual person to decipher what 'harm' means. I personally think anything that infringes on anyone else's rights or health should be illegal. That covers a lot of ground.
Seatbelts? Who cares! Pot? Who cares! Abortion? Illegal (I think life begins at conception, if you disagree with that then I can see a case pro-choice). Etc., etc., etc.
So for every major dilemma or problem America faces, I think if you answer that question and the answer is that it harms someone else, or can do harm, then it should be illegal. Besides that, let people live their f*ing lives.
God I wish I lived in the 1950's.
bigalthethird said: God I wish I lived in the 1950's.
I did Big Al 3. It was a great time to live. You could leave the keys in your car and it would always be there. Kids could go play and always came home at night... unmolested. If a kid fell down in the neighbor's yard and skinned a knee, no litigation would take place and no one from Child Protective Services would show up to Gestapo you. There were dress codes in schools, teachers were allowed to maintain discipline, we learned good manners and how to respect our elders and one another. We always stood up and placed our right hands over our hearts when Old Glory passed by and sang the National Anthem with pride. I sure miss America...
Bear - I think I love you.
Even though I didn't live in the 50's, my father did and my grandparents did, and they infused their love of 'the olden days' into me. Because everything was better.
So I wear 50s clothes. My Bausch and Lomb Ray Ban Wayfarers are from 1958. I surround myself in 50s paraphernalia. My car is from '64, and my music is from '55-59. My hair is old, my record player is old, my guitars are old, hell - even the parts on my guitars are old.
I dunno, I just like the stuff from the era more, and in general I like the era a lot more. I'm going to raise my children in that type of environment.
Nowadays, the fundamental problems are a lack of personal responsibility, and a lack of respect for the rights of others, and a lack of empathy for others. My children won't have that problem, and although my girlfriend/fiancee/wife thinks I'm a little goofy sometimes (
) she wholeheartedly agrees with me about child rearing.
My children will also (on top of being inundated with 50s crap all over my house) be forced to watch a combined total of 12 hours a day of either I Love Lucy or Andy Griffith a day.
Speaking of that, here's my latest 'suit' jacket. Check the bowtie! I look PHENOMENAL in it.
Do Not Be Affraid said: honestly, i have a hard time understanding how anyone can support any of these candidates! especially when they're dead!It doesn't look like we have much of a choice I prefer to get my advice from dead people. There is little hope in this next election. McCain is a bumbling idiot. Obama is a black dude. That's going to play out quite interestingly. McCaine will be a continuation of the Bush admin which I don't want. Black op's is running everything anyway so does it really make a difference?
I was going to post a funny picture of Obama, but even though absolutely nothing offends me I figured it wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of the topic.
Maybe if I can find an equally funny picture of McCain...
Well BA3, I love you too. You are absolutely correct in the fact that today, no one wants to take any personal responsibility for anything and that is very, very sad. Everything today needs to be litigated. I'm sorry, but that is just pure BS.
Lawyers, corporate America, and inept political leaders bought and paid for by special interest concerns are destroying this once great country. It is not too late to fix this downward spiral, but the people need to take action. We are still in control but too many of us don't realize it or care enough to get involved.
I don't know how many of you have read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" but you should. The similarities to what is happening in America right now will make you soil your tidy whities.
AMERICA... WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
I'm tired.
Want to move to Vermont Bear?
I actually agree 100% about what's happening. People have their heads somewhere besides on their neck, because they think America is impervious to failure. They thought we were impossible to attack, then 9/11 was somewhat of a wake up (and prompted many to call for war). But since many Americans are short-minded and selfish, they've forgotten about how fragile democracy really is, and they've forgotten how easily our lives can be shattered.
This country can fail, and can fail quickly. As a matter of fact, the law of averages says with 99% certainty that the country will fail in the next few hundred years.
If that's not scary, I don't know what is. But what you do is teach your f*ing children some manners, and take the country in your own friggin hands. If you don't like what the Government is doing, tell them! Or do something! Don't sit idly by and let it stand. This is a country run by the people - or it should be.
Many Americans I know want stuff to be done for them. They want to be told how to live their lives, or at least they don't fight like hell when freedoms are taken away. Every damn week it seems, something else is taken away. People don't understand just how fantastically slippery that slope is. But these people want to live passive, disconnected lives, with politicians and litigation policing others. If someone does something that affronts you in any way, they need to be taken care of by the law.
The way it used to be was that people ran their own damn lives, paid the Government some taxes, and in return their rights, freedoms, and safety were protected. Not any more. Now we pay the Government (more I might add) to dictate our lives. It's sad.
If there is ever a nationwide ban on weapons, I'm out. That's the last step before nationwide implosion.
I don't feel that I'm represented by either Democrats or Republicans.
I can't believe I'm quoting Jesse Ventura, but he said something once that stuck with me and describes my views as well-- "I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative."
Another way I'd word it is "Do whatcha wanna and don't ask me to pay for it."
I think the government and special interest groups are always legislating (or pushing to legislate) things that shouldn't be legislated. If the government merely kept our borders safe from outside threats and kept our internal infrastructure up and running I'd be happy. As far as everything else goes, I don't need the government to be my parent. Especially the way the government is now-- sort of a manic alcoholic bad parent that does unsensible things impulsively while extravagantly blowing money left and right and selling things off to the pawn shop for more dough to continue. 
Bear, I was charmed by some of your (first) post, but appalled by a lot of it. I was actually fairly sure it was satire when I misread the line about not shooting southbound illegals, since I figure that an awful lot of American citizens would be heading south under such a regime - probably to escape starvation.
Please take a deep breath and wait to react as you read this: It's clear that YOU have a lot of disdain for this country - AS IT CURRENTLY IS, IN SOME PARTICULAR RESPECTS. And probably a great love for what it still is at its best (by your definitions, naturally), what you wish it was, believe it once was, or hope it could become. Please try to see that someone with different criticisms of the current state of things could probably be described the same way. To be disappointed, heartbroken, and frustrated at the condition of a country one loves very dearly indeed is hardly unpatriotic.
(EDIT: You've posted a few more since then that I don't have any problems with.)
Now, the one thing we just can't have is state-mandated prayer in schools. Whether prayer might be permitted is certainly open to debate, but no religion may legally be shown preferential treatment, and atheists are among those groups whose rights need to be respected. I personally despise all religions equally, although I think that most of them encourage people to be nicer to one another.
I'm opposed to most foreign aid (money to fight AIDS in Africa being a notable exception, and one that even Bush agrees with me on), in favor of limited welfare, and completely in favor of universal medical coverage, not out of Christian principles, but because we ARE the government, and all of those policies save us (collectively, but not in a Communist way) lots of money. In other words, it's economically conservative. And it "provide(s) for the common good", which should be a familiar phrase.
crowbone, you are a perfect example of why the labels "conservative" and "liberal" don't apply to everyone. I don't agree with everything you say, but I'm always glad to see someone who has thought about issues individually and not just adopted a set of prefabricated principles associated with a particular political movement.
bigalthethird, we differ on a few key things for sure, but I respect where you're coming from. I have long described the cornerstone of my political philosophy as, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins". That said, we don't need to see your photo to know that you are a white male. No one else would be so fervent about wishing they lived in the 1950's, no matter how cool the music and hairstyles were back then. And not all white males had such an easy time of it, either. If your politics, ethnicity, religion, drug habits, musical tastes, or sexual mores were not in lockstep with the mainstream, you could find yourself dead, ostracised from society, or in jail pretty easily. Remember that even engaging in oral sex with your own wife was illegal in many states until a couple of years ago. That's not very libertarian, is it?
I'm white, too, but one of my grandfather's brothers was murdered by a Virginia sheriff's deputy for having a German last name.
I scored a 15 on the test, by the way. I liked both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
Gretschington, that's Libertarianism, basically. If you read my posts throughout, you'll see that I share the exact same principle basically.
The Libertarian party cannot succeed because it's too vague on things beside personal liberties (such as foreign policy, many economic policies, environmental policies), but I'm still a member. That said, there's a new party trying to start up called Libertarian Reformists or something which is trying to add those other issues on top of the "leave me alone" mentality.
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities.html
Read the quotes from any of those celebrities. I'd bet it describes you exactly.
seadevil said: Now, the one thing we just can't have is state-mandated prayer in schools. Whether prayer might be permitted is certainly open to debate, but no religion may legally be shown preferential treatment, and atheists are among those groups whose rights need to be respected. I personally despise all religions equally, although I think that most of them encourage people to be nicer to one another.
I've wrestled with this for a long time, and I keep coming back to agreeing with what you said. This nation was absolutely and inarguably founded Under God, but I don't think it's right to force your religious views on children without the consent of their parents. From a practical perspective, if you want people to come around to God and believe, forcing them surely is not the way.
seadevil said:I'm opposed to most foreign aid (money to fight AIDS in Africa being a notable exception, and one that even Bush agrees with me on), in favor of limited welfare, and completely in favor of universal medical coverage, not out of Christian principles, but because we ARE the government, and all of those policies save us (collectively, but not in a Communist way) lots of money. In other words, it's economically conservative. And it "provide(s) for the common good", which should be a familiar phrase.
I'm for Foreign aid for two reasons: we have the resources, and they don't. It is our obligation as human beings to support people less fortunate than us. And to call Burma or something like that "less fortunate" is as under-emphasized as saying that the Dodgers are not good.
A civilized people MUST help others, or else they aren't civilized. And historically, our greatest Economic prosperity follows our greatest charity to others. Helping people in the world who cannot help themselves is (quite simply) what being a human is about, in my opinion, and America simply has to do it.
As far as universal medical care, I agree that every American deserves medical care. 100% agree. But Government provided medical care is the wrong way to go. They can't even run the Senate properly, do you think they can really coordinate a medical plan and hospitals/doctors to care for 350 million Americans? No, the answer is privatized medical groups that compete for your business, with the OPTION of a Government run plan. Just like the way UPS/FedEx/USPS works. Not only that, add on top tax credit for each adult + each child towards health care. That's how you solve that problem.
seadevil said:bigalthethird, we differ on a few key things for sure, but I respect where you're coming from. I have long described the cornerstone of my political philosophy as, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins". That said, we don't need to see your photo to know that you are a white male. No one else would be so fervent about wishing they lived in the 1950's, no matter how cool the music and hairstyles were back then. And not all white males had such an easy time of it, either. If your politics, ethnicity, religion, drug habits, musical tastes, or sexual mores were not in lockstep with the mainstream, you could find yourself dead, ostracised from society, or in jail pretty easily. Remember that even engaging in oral sex with your own wife was illegal in many states until a couple of years ago. That's not very libertarian, is it?
The 50s is absolutely marred by what you're alluding to. It's sickening, honestly, and I can't understand that mindset. I would have wanted to have lived in the 50s, but just like my father or my grandparents I would not have agreed with any of the absolute injustices that occurred.
Quite frankly, I think the two biggest stains in America's history are the treatment of African Americans from 17xx-19xx and the whole Abortion debacle (but that's another story). Like I said, if you don't think life begins at conception then I completely see the argument for pro-choice.
seadevil said: Now, the one thing we just can't have is state-mandated prayer in schools. Whether prayer might be permitted is certainly open to debate, but no religion may legally be shown preferential treatment, and atheists are among those groups whose rights need to be respected. I personally despise all religions equally, although I think that most of them encourage people to be nicer to one another.
In reviewing my original post, I will give in on this one... somewhat.
I did not specify Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hebrew, Druid, or any other specific religion. I just said, "a prayer to God". I will redefine that as, "a prayer to YOUR GOD." Atheists and agnostics may sit quietly during the prayer doing whatever they see fit. However, this nation was founded with a sound religious background and I don't feel that where or when I choose to pray is anybody's concern, but our children should be exposed to religion as part of their education and where better than in school since Mom is no longer at home with the kids but out in the job market trying to help make ends meet. If my prayer offends your beliefs, feel free to either look away or pray to whomever you choose to pray to in your own way but don't try to legislate away my right to do so. Polls have shown that 86% of American people believe in God. Why must we kowtow to the other 14%; and, why is it okay not to offend Muslims or Buddhists, or Hebrews, but it is perfectly okay to offend Christians? Can someone please explain that to me?
Re: Life, conception, and abortion:
Life, yes, but at what point is it human life? The biggest part of the debate is not even that - it's the fact that it's dictating what can go on INSIDE another person's body. Often that person is not an adult, and that makes it even more complex.
I hate the whole thing. Abortion is horribly upsetting even to think about. I don't know how it could not cause emotional scars in every woman who has one, although some are blessed or cursed with an ability to emerge from it oddly indifferent to its gravity.
BUT it's not my body, and not my place to legislate against. And so many social forces conspire against pregnant women who aren't married that there are no alternatives for many of them. Employers won't pay them for pregnancy leave, they are roundly condemned by the "righteous", and there is no assurance that adoption will be satisfactory to the child or the mother.
I honestly think that those who are most strongly opposed to abortion need to offer a very wide range of incentives for a woman to keep her child (paying for prenatal care, fighting social prejudice against conception out of wedlock, placing the child in a loving foster home if need be, collecting money for the child's education and health care if not, etc.) before even considering the legal (or extralegal) disincentives which have done little to stop abortions in the past. We've all heard the horror stories about botched "back-alley" abortions that are the among the results of making abortion illegal. Passing a law against something, no matter what it is, doesn't stop people from doing it if they are strongly motivated. (Or, of course, if they think that they can get away with it.)
Anti-abortionists should also be the strongest advocates for contraception, an "ounce of prevention" if there ever was one.
Bear, what you say makes sense in the abstract, but imagine this: A classroom full of children, all but a small minority of whom have the same beliefs, being told that this is the time for prayer, whatever your beliefs may be. It's the equivalent of painting the minority purple and then asking everyone to ignore the fact that they look different.
If it were done with the greatest possible sensitivity, it could be a wonderful lesson in understanding and tolerance. But we know full well that that's probably not how it would play out in the majority of classrooms.
I felt really, really uncomfortable as a child when we got to the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was never there until the Eisenhower administration, and it doesn't belong there. Even the "founding fathers" used language like "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" (note that "Rights", too, is capitalized, undermining the notion that capitalizing "Creator" means that they are referring to a Christian God), rather than being explicitly Christain. You know why? THEY WEREN"T CHRISTIAN, for the most part! They were Deists! It's a subtle difference, but it was considered somewhat radical at the time.
So, anyway, some time to meditate, pray, think of those you love, consider ways you could be a better person, or just try to calm down about that big test in fourth period would be great. Encouragement of spiritual values and an ability to see the "big picture" of society and the cosmos and not just one's narrow little world of PS2's and name-calling or whatever would be fantastic. But you have to be careful about implementing a policy that is prone to abuse.
bigalthethird said: Gretschington, that's Libertarianism
Yeah, I'm much closer to that party's views than the Reps or Dems. And I agree with your comment about their vagueness issues being a problem. And it seems that after Harry Brown died they haven't found anybody with the right stuff to replace him. The other thing they have going against them is that most people completely disregard anything except Democrat or Republican. They think any other party must be whacko or threatening or evil or whatever. They'd rather take the shortcut and believe that than face the fact that they are too mentally lazy to question the status quo and see if there are better answers out there. It's the whole false dilema bit; "you are either Democrat or Republican- which one are you?" As if it's set in stone that there are only 2 choices and you are locked into picking one of the two.
I always vote for the person, not the party. I really like Ron Paul. I think he has great ideas and is a very sensible guy. He's the only candidate out there that I like right now. I hope the movement he's associated with picks up some success in the coming years.
Now, I'm really going to shake up a bunch of people with this observation, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Barack Hussein Obama is running for President with very little actual experience. Have any of you considered the fact that the vast wealth of the Muslim oil producing nations may well be buying their own candidate for our highest executive office? What better way for them to rid themselves of the infidels they so despise than by having one of their own steering OUR ship? Just something to consider before November.
Also, this picture is definitely worth a thousand words!
seadevil said:Life, yes, but at what point is it human life? The biggest part of the debate is not even that - it's the fact that it's dictating what can go on INSIDE another person's body. Often that person is not an adult, and that makes it even more complex.
Well if it is a human life, then no matter WHO it affects, you must save it. There are a lot of people living today who are just as much of a burden on others as those children are on their mothers. And I get the arguments about the child not being raised properly, not having the right conditions, parents not ready, etc. But any chance at life is better than no life. Why cut off any chance that person has at life? There would be somewhere around 40 million more Americans were it not for abortion (though some would argue this helps overpopulation), and we've got no idea what those 40 million people would bring to the country.
If it's not a human life, then I agree with everyone.
But scientists almost unanimously agree that it is a life at conception, because the genetic makeup and DNA changes instantaneously - it is no longer the mother or the father, it is a new little human with its own hewn identity.
BUT it's not my body, and not my place to legislate against. And so many social forces conspire against pregnant women who aren't married that there are no alternatives for many of them. Employers won't pay them for pregnancy leave, they are roundly condemned by the "righteous", and there is no assurance that adoption will be satisfactory to the child or the mother.
I get this. It's basically a big clusterf*. My point remains, but it is immensely sad sometimes to see the types of women, who feel they have absolutely no other avenue. Very sad. In almost every case they end up regretting the decision, which makes it all the worse.
I don't feel anger or animosity at all towards the women who are simply scared, I don't like the doctors who make a living on the suffering of others.
Passing a law against something, no matter what it is, doesn't stop people from doing it if they are strongly motivated. (Or, of course, if they think that they can get away with it.)
I've heard this argument a lot obviously, but here's the counter (that I'm sure you heard). Straight up murder is wrong, and illegal. It's illegal, and people will always do it. Do we make it legal? Of course not! That leads to anarchy. If something is wrong, make it illegal. It will still be done, of course, but it'll reduce the amount. And those women with the coat hangers, that's sad as hell. But I'm a hard-ass. That's your f*ing fault in that case.
bigalthethird said: This nation was absolutely and inarguably founded Under God[...]
For what it's worth...
"Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), wrote the original Pledge in August 1892.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge."
