America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by RICKAMAVEN. 37 replies replies.
DRMADVIBE
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 5:55 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
"Where should it start and where should it end? Womb-Tomb? No personal decisions? No personal responsibilites? Banking? Healthcare? Human Resources? Personal Finance?"

Seriously. The government is Santa Claus benders are getting old. (i don't understand this sentence.)

i guess i missed your question re govt's role in the lives of people.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

simple and straight forward yet subject to the same interpretation as

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

and

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors."

where does a BJ fit into these definitions?

and

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

violated constantly by ashcroft and never constrained by the congress

and

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

law suits still pending re the texas rangers land grab that gave GWB $15,000,000 profit for a token investment and political clout.

i hope this answers your questions

eleltea Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 6:42 AM EST
Joined: 03-03-2002
Posts: 4,562
I started to read this and then realized I might as well devote the time to Joyce's Ulysses instead.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 9:43 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
or watch kill bill 2.
EI Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 9:48 AM EST
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
Rick reading that looks like your trying to re write the constitution all by yourself. Or did ya get some help from the DNC?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 11:05 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
Rick, just what do you think the government's role is?

Where should it start and where should it end? Womb-Tomb? No personal decisions? No personal responsibilites? Banking? Healthcare? Human Resources? Personal Finance?

Seriously. The government is Santa Claus benders are getting old.


You STILL didn't answer the question. If I want to read the Constitution, I'll damned well read the WHOLE thing and not cut & paste whatever parts I like to fit whatever situation I can cram them into!

You'll go well out of your way to mention how this should be funded or that shouldn't. How so-so isn't worth a damn, but ya-ya is. What I'm asking for should be on the front of your mind. Only YOU know how YOU believe the US governemnt should work. I'm asking for YOUR opinion and not a hack job. I want to know what basis you form these socialistic notions. I want to know how you believe government should work when the largest communist government to date is repealing the giveaways and lethargic plagues that bound them to "a chicken in every pot"!

Perhaps you CAN'T do it. Is it just easier to bitch and moan?
penzt8 Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 11:28 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
DMV

I started a thread about the role of government. It's not getting a lot of action. I was hoping to get to the heart of why the folks here feel the way they do about the government. Not a dems vs reps discussion but a discussion of their basic values. Not a discussion about who did what or who will do what but what should our governemnt be doing. and why?
bloody spaniard Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 12:08 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Rick said (referring to DrM's comment): "Seriously. The government is Santa Claus benders are getting old. (i don't understand this sentence.)"


Rick, I believe that the Madd Doktor meant that the Government's Santa Claus- like benders (spending binges) are getting old (predictably tiresome).


I think that I'm becoming fluent in FLebonics.
Someday, I hope to speak "Rickamaven" as well.

blood
DrMaddVibe Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 12:08 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
That's exactly what's fueling this.

On a seperate thread.."Thank You Mr.President" is the one that got me thinking that there are a lot of people that want "pie in the sky" government and are willing to pay it with tax dollars. Just not THEIR tax dollars. The mere notion of government doing anything for me creeps me out. I don't need a job, a paycheck, an IRA, housing, or any other program where they siphon off of the top to give to "disenfranchised" individuals. I'm more than happy to pay my FAIR share and do. When I have to hear about those "mean old republicans", "neo-cons", "religious whackos" or any other adjective describing anyone other than a liberal I want to know what premise they're basing their role of government on.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 12:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
The government is Santa Claus benders...

refers to the entitlements or restrictions that Rick believes the US government gives him or causes him discomfort. The "whisper in my ear and tell me what you want" form of government. The benders part stems from the tireless banterings of a delusional individual's constant need to rant about GW with every waking breath!

I find it amusing that almost everyone here that wants to deride the President finds him stupid. Then they'll come up with the absurd notions that GW took the candy away from babies and stole all of their money. Which is it? Is he stupid or is he smart? I haven't met a stupid person that could take money away from me.
Cavallo Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 1:20 PM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
i don't think bush is stupid.

i think he's ignorant.

he's admitted this many times, too (which i respect, actually). comments like "i'm a white republican. i don't know what poor people are like, but i'd like to" seem very honest.

he acknowledges that he grew up in a very insulated, protected way with very limited contact (or none at all) with poor people, people of color, gays and lesbians, etc.

and that's fine. it's no fault of his that he was raised in such ignorance. however, for all the "but i'd like to know" he's made little to no effort to CHANGE his ignorance -- and that is something that he can do.

when he's ignorant and KNOWS he's ignorant but then proceeds to make policy that affects people he knows nothing about while believing that he knows best, THAT is what i object to.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 1:29 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
What policy?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 1:31 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
I almost forgot...As opposed to Kerry's "humble" upbringing? Give me a BREAK!
bloody spaniard Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 2:28 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
I am not sure that he's a complete dolt.
He was smart enough to surround himself with shrewd, manipulative minds who have a corporate tilt.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 3:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
EI

are you saying or implying or even suggesting i have misquoted?

if not, what did you mean by your remark?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 3:18 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
DrMaddVibe

why don't you go piss up a rope. you don't want any answers, you just want to rant and rave. i'm not interested in your silly games.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 5:15 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
I don't blame you Rick. You've tapdanced around the question until your tired little feet are screaming louder than you about how GW has robbed you!

Too tough to answer? Can't find the cut and paste for it?
EI Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 5:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
Your annotations in between the words of our founding fathers made the post read like it was part of the Constitution and not points of view on the contents.
Either you do not know how to annotate, or your intent was to confuse and mislead persons unfamailar with the constitution. Or perhaps it was the fault of c-bid posting of the content in a way in which it was not written
Just a point of observation
The DNC comment of mine was a playful jab to enhance the point
osage Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 5:46 PM EST
Joined: 02-18-2001
Posts: 492
Rick, You are getting more like Kerry everyday. First I won't respond and then I will respond.
dccrens Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 5:53 PM EST
Joined: 04-04-2004
Posts: 721
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors."

where does a BJ fit into these definitions?

Rick,

Actually, while almost never prosecuted, adultery and fellatio are misdemeanors in many states and D.C.. So on this point your point (presumedly on Clinton) doesn't hold up...

Cavallo Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2004, 6:30 PM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
dc: good point, and it's one that i hadn't thought of -- but clinton was never charged with the crime of fellatio or adultery. now i'm curious to know if those are on dc statutes. or were -- the so-called "sodomy law" nationwide has been, in effect, stricken down since (that would cover BJ's).
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 2:06 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
dccrens

son of a gun, i didn't know that.

we need to form a committee and look into some of our other politicians misdemeanors.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 2:09 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
osage

did you ever have the feeling you wanted to go?
then you had the feeling you wanted to stay?
wanted to go, wanted to stay. what a dilemma!

see jimmy durante

RICKAMAVEN Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 2:11 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
EI

i trust you were not confused.
EI Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 4:17 AM EST
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
No Rick Just amused.

And just in case you didn't know. Clinton was charge and found guilty with lying under oath in a federal investigation.

He was impeached. However he was not removed from office because of the neglect of the Democrat senators to place the law above partisanship. (This by the way is costing Millions to the tax payers every year, in the way of pension, office space, various other perks and secret service protection for him and his family till he dies. All of which he would not be entilted to had he been removed from office for committing a high crime and misdemenor)

Now Rick I hope your not confused

penzt8 Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 5:12 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
What the President should have been charged with was sexual misconduct and sexual harrassment. And don't give me that crap about her being a consenting adult. She was his subordinate in a work environment. If a senior military officer had committed the same offense with a junior officer or airman He would have been court martialed and force out of the military.


BTW, wasn't Martha Stewart found guilty of lying and nothing else? Guess she should just be excused.
osage Offline
#26 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 5:50 AM EST
Joined: 02-18-2001
Posts: 492
Rick, As I get older I have the urge to want to go all the time! LOL
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#27 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 8:28 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
EI

perhaps he should have done a nixon and resign before being impeached. at least clinton had the cajones to stick it out.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 8:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
penzt8

may i refer you to the tailhook scandal.

http://d5.dir.scd.yahoo.com/society_and_culture/crime/types_of_crime/sex_crimes/sexual_harassment/sexual_harassment_in_the_military/1991_tailhook_scandal/
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#29 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 8:34 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
osage

how much more we have in common then you realized.

may i recommend two tablespoons of psyllium once or twice a day in a tall glass of water.
EI Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 11:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
Here rick let me break that statement down for you

"perhaps he should have done a nixon and resign"
(THE HONORABLE THING TO DO TO SAVE THE DIGNITY OF THE OFFICE)
" before being impeached."
(CAUSING UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE OFFICE AND WASTING MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN THE PROCESS)
" at least clinton had the cajones to stick it out."
(HE STUCK OUT MORE THAN HIS CAJONES)
penzt8 Offline
#31 Posted: Thu, Aug 12 2004, 12:08 PM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
Ric,

First, two wrongs don't make a right.

The tailhook incidents did drive a few senior personnel out of the service and be assured that those that remained in the service didn't see regular promotions. But the Clinton circumstances are totally different. Clinton was having sex with a whitehouse intern in his office. He wasn't just some drunk ass sailor at a convention.

Just to be clear, people at tailhook were punished and some were forced to resign. Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention.

In total, 119 Navy and 21 Marine Corps officers were referred by Pentagon investigators for possible disciplinary actions. The careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were damaged by Tailhook. Although there was insufficient evidence to warrant court martials about half of those involved received captains mast punishment.

Whereas in the Clinton case there was a little evidence on a blue dress that was quite irrefutable. Ultimately Clinton confessed.

RICKAMAVEN Offline
#32 Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2004, 4:08 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
penzt8

"He wasn't just some drunk ass sailor at a convention." are you suggesting his consensual BJ was the same as a "drunk ass sailor" molesting women?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#33 Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2004, 4:09 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
Rick...piss up a rope or answer the question!
penzt8 Offline
#34 Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2004, 5:49 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
No, what I'm saying is there is no comparison between the Clinton affair and tailhook. Tailhook involved a bunch of rowdy drunken sailors and marines acting like complete idiots. It doesn't excuse their actions but I don't find it in the same league as an employer/boss using his position of power to engage in sexual relations (consentual or not) with a subordinate.

I personally don't care if any president has an affair, solicits prostitutes, or has a porn habit. I'm not making a moral judgement. It's improper to have sex with the help. The subordinate will always be in a position where they may submit to sexual advances out of fear or just the awe of the position.

I mean really, if the president of the US or the president of a fortune 500 hundred company each invited 20 low level staff workers into their office (separately of course) and then expressed a desire to have a quick sexual encounter on the presidents desk, what are the odds that one of them would say yes? Does that really make it consensual?


I don't know what happened between Clinton and Lewinsky that led up to their eventual sexual relationship. Lewinsky may not even consider herself a victim or possibly chose not to assume the role of victim because of the stigma that goes with it. She can state that it was a mutual affair and therefore her public persona is enhanced.

If she says she was coerced or in anyway indicates that she is a victim then she gets put on trial. Her whole background is investigated and she is made out to look like a tramp (ala the Kobe Bryant case). As a presidential mistress, despite the fat jokes, she grabs a certain amount of prestige and power.

That's why people who abuse their power (especially elected officials) should be punished. Clinton, as the person in a position of power should have known the power that he wielded over a young intern and not engaged in sexual activity with her.




penzt8 Offline
#35 Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2004, 5:50 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
Oh yeah, sorry for the thread jack.
penzt8 Offline
#36 Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2004, 5:53 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
BTW,

DMV are you evacuating? Looks like a big one coming your way. Be safe.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#37 Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2004, 8:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
DrMaddVibe

i'll get the rope.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#38 Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2004, 8:43 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
BLOOD

"I am not sure that he's a complete dolt. He was smart enough to surround himself with shrewd, manipulative minds who have a corporate tilt."

it is my belief the he was picked as a good front man and not the other way around.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top