Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [arizonaporcupines] Re: I'm new to this forum

Expand Messages
  • Rick LaPoint
    Of course, you realize that you sent this to the entire list. Not that there is any harm in such an action, as in-action seems to be the rule of the day in
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Of course, you realize that you sent this to the entire list.

      Not that there is any harm in such an action, as in-action seems to be
      the rule of the day in these parts.

      I won't address those points you directed at Sandy, but am curious about
      a couple of things you stated in your post...

      What part of Indiana are you from? My wife is currently 'spending time'
      with her family in Evansville, and I may move there for a spell as part
      of my trek toward NH.

      How do you like AZ thus far? Being from NH, I hate it myself... quite
      statist IMO, to put it lightly.

      Welcome aboard!

      rick

      -----Original Message-----
      From: arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of olehenry1
      Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 2:52 PM
      To: arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [arizonaporcupines] Re: I'm new to this forum

      "sjprice1" <s@r...> wrote:
      > I am, however, well acquainted with FSP.  I cannot move from Sun
      >City, Arizona due to arthritis and age.  I'm interested in individual
      > freedoms and am currently on the Board of "End of Life Choices" in
      >the N.W. Phoenix area. 
      >
      > Having been a Republican for 50 years, I cannot support the Bush
      > Administration in their overly intrusive desire to control our
      > personal lives.  I'm interested in Fiscal Conservatives and would
      >love to connect with other voters in Arizona. 
      >
      > Sandy Price

      Hi Sandy,

      I am a young nonvoter interested in bypassing the gov'ts services in
      favor of those controlled by individuals that I enter into contract
      with.  I simply dislike all of the services the government provides
      and am interested in contracting with those who work for money, not in
      the name of "public's interest".

      A well-designed description of values that I respect is presented at
      www.selfsip.org.  The primary thinkers behind this are Oct-Apr
      residents of Casa Grande, Paul and Kitty.

      I currently stay with them now and then and will soon be in Phoenix
      completing school and working for dollar bills.

      I initially have two questions in regards to "fiscal conservation".
      What evidence or theory do you have that having one (or many) fiscally
      conservative representative(s) will impact your life in positive ways?

      Which irresponsible spendings are affecting you negatively and what
      evidence in your life proves this to you?

      bye for now,
      Jack [27, m, from indiana originally, healthy, active (mind & body),
      happy and getting even happier!, in school to develop material design
      and handling skills (engineering)]




      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      •  Visit your group "arizonaporcupines" on the web.
       
      •  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
       arizonaporcupines-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
       
      •  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Sandra Price
      Olehenry1. You have your freedom not to vote or get involved in anyway with local or federal government decisions but then you have no right to complain about
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Olehenry1. You have your freedom not to vote or get involved in anyway with
        local or federal government decisions but then you have no right to complain
        about the government's decisions.



        I personally have had some wonderful victories in dealing with heavy-handed
        politicians when I lived in California and we managed to put controls on our
        property taxes when many of our seniors, on fixed incomes, were forced to
        sell their homes. It took hard work from one end of California to the other
        but the voters themselves put a limit on the taxes they had to pay. We
        forced the State to act fiscally instead of their never-ending billing the
        residents of the states to pay for services we did not want.



        I am a Fiscal Conservative in the same way that Barry Goldwater was running
        his campaign in 1964. He felt the government had no place in our education
        standards, our personal choices, or our family values. He wanted the
        Federal powers scaled back to fit the job description in the Constitution.



        At this time, the Feds issue mandates for the States to follow and these are
        often redundant and too costly for the tax payers to pay. The Federal
        government has one single purpose and that is to protect American citizens
        from foreign attack; which to me, means protecting our borders and all forms
        of transportation entering the country. They have failed on this due to a
        heavy influence of Social issues that they are not equipped to handle.



        In America we all have our own individual standards (moral and ethical) and
        the Federal Government has no business setting their own social standards on
        any of us. The States each have their own Constitution where the people
        themselves have agreed to when these Constitutions were ratified. If the
        people want, they can change portions of the laws through elections. We
        have elected Congressional Representatives who have totally ignored our
        State Constitutions and in doing so have destroyed the 10th Amendment of our
        U.S. Constitution. Our State Rights are being eroded by men like Jeff
        Flake, Trent Franks, J.D. Hayworth, Shaddeg and both of our Senators in an
        effort to bring their own religious doctrines into our lives. These men
        have run on Conservative labels and in fact are little religious dictators
        trying to legislate our personal choices. There is no expensive federal
        bill they will not vote for if the King of the Hill (G.W. Bush) requests it
        . In my point of view, they are not Conservative but simply religious
        wackos who will not allow our freedoms to remain our own. I would like to
        see them all thrown out of office in 2006!



        My definition of a Fiscal Conservative is as follows: A desire for limited
        government; individual freedoms guaranteed and personal responsibilities
        given back to all Americans. Anything less than this would be unacceptable
        to me. We had these freedoms when I was growing up and they are now being
        removed by an intrusive form of government that would have been totally
        unacceptable during the writing of the Constitution.



        Where to start on waste and abuse of our taxes? Unless you follow the
        actions of the U.S. Congress, you will never know. Do the research and you
        will see the billions of dollars that are spent on pork issues simply to buy
        the votes of the U.S. Congress members.



        Sandy Price





        _____



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • olehenry1
        ... I m not completely familiar with the terms. Entire list meaning it was sent to the yahoo group forum or did I accidentally send every member a reply
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 8, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          "Rick LaPoint" <rick@o...> wrote:
          > Of course, you realize that you sent this to the entire list.
          > Not that there is any harm in such an action, as in-action seems to
          >be the rule of the day in these parts.

          I'm not completely familiar with the terms. "Entire list" meaning it
          was sent to the yahoo group forum or did I accidentally send every
          member a reply (reply-to-all) in addition?

          > I won't address those points you directed at Sandy, but am curious
          >about a couple of things you stated in your post...
          >
          > What part of Indiana are you from? My wife is currently 'spending
          >time' with her family in Evansville, and I may move there for a
          >spell as part of my trek toward NH.

          Grew up age 3-19 in Fort Wayne, schooling in Lafayette and Muncie
          from 19-23.

          > How do you like AZ thus far? Being from NH, I hate it myself...
          >quite statist IMO, to put it lightly.

          Compared to what I've read of NH and a few other states, I would hate
          AZ as well. However, I've noted in my journal, "politics is
          politics, whether yer in Alabamy or Big City New York".
          Either you have "crooks" spending your confiscated tax dollars or you
          have "honest abe" spending it. Regardless, they spend it in
          the "public's interest". Who are these "public"?

          I love the weather.

          > Welcome aboard!
          >
          > rick

          Thanks rick. When do you head off toward the East?
          Jack
        • olehenry1
          Hi sandy, We have quite a few differences in definitions as well as the importance/significance of some words. I hope you can appreciate this and are willing
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 8, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi sandy,

            We have quite a few differences in definitions as well as the
            importance/significance of some words. I hope you can appreciate
            this and are willing to patiently communicate with me.

            Additionally, I have no desire to win a conversation. If my
            sentences appear to be charged with mindless emotion, please do not
            take offense. There may actually be some good points hidden in the
            passion (feel free to ignore what you see as rotten fruit and
            instead, pick the good stuff).

            --- In arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com, "Sandra Price" <s@r...>
            wrote:
            > Olehenry1. You have your freedom not to vote or get involved in
            anyway with
            > local or federal government decisions but then you have no right to
            complain
            > about the government's decisions.

            I feel it is "right" of me to complain (I assume you mean critique,
            analyze, disassemble scientifically as I don't practice complaining
            since rarely do I feel great suffering) about actions taken by men of
            the "government club". I feel it is equally right of me to critique
            past actions of ANY organizations as well as individuals so that I
            may learn and possibly relate ideas with others.

            I've heard the one-liner, "If ya Don't vote, you have no right to
            complain about what they vote for."
            Incorrect.
            If 51% voted to kill the 25% of voters who happened to vote "yea" for
            their lives, this 25% have a right to complain. If that 51% also
            voted to kill the 24% of nonvoters, those nonvoters have no right to
            complain?

            Why?

            >I personally have had some wonderful victories in dealing with
            >heavy-handed politicians when I lived in California and we managed
            >to put controls on our property taxes when many of our seniors, on
            >fixed incomes, were forced to sell their homes. It took hard work
            >from one end of California to the other but the voters themselves
            >put a limit on the taxes they had to pay. We forced the State to
            >act fiscally instead of their never-ending billing the residents of
            >the states to pay for services we did not want.

            Superficially (without more information), I commend your efforts.
            I do have a problem however with your use of "we". I assume you mean
            ALL Californians, or maybe ALL seniors, or maybe ALL female
            Californians, or maybe ALL of your friends... did your new law which
            was enforced on ALL Californians satisfy ALL Californians?

            >I am a Fiscal Conservative in the same way that Barry Goldwater was
            >running his campaign in 1964. He felt the government had no place
            >in our education standards, our personal choices, or our family
            >values. He wanted the Federal powers scaled back to fit the job
            >description in the Constitution.

            One problem I see generally with the Constitution is simply this: in
            order to get where we are today, we had to have the Constitution as a
            starting point. I have proof that the Constitution is the "1st
            cause" of where we are today...proof: a 200+ year case study. :)

            >At this time, the Feds issue mandates for the States to follow and
            >these are often redundant and too costly for the tax payers to pay.
            >The Federal government has one single purpose and that is to protect
            >American citizens from foreign attack; which to me, means protecting
            >our borders and all forms of transportation entering the country.
            >They have failed on this due to a heavy influence of Social issues
            >that they are not equipped to handle.

            >In America we all have our own individual standards (moral and
            >ethical) and the Federal Government has no business setting their
            >own social standards on any of us. The States each have their own
            >Constitution where the people themselves have agreed to when these
            >Constitutions were ratified. If the people want, they can change
            >portions of the laws through elections.

            Again, this use of "we" drives home an important point. "We"
            Americans all think alike...but if not, then "we" New Hampshire
            residents all think alike...but maybe not, so then we City of Concord
            residents all think alike...well, guess not...so then...

            Where do you draw the line? Why can't a Federal Gov't make decisions
            for "we"? Why is this different than a State Gov't making decisions
            for "we"? and a city gov't, etc....

            >We have elected Congressional Representatives who have totally
            >ignored our State Constitutions and in doing so have destroyed the
            >10th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution. Our State Rights are being
            >eroded by men like Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, J.D. Hayworth, Shaddeg
            >and both of our Senators in an effort to bring their own religious
            >doctrines into our lives. These men have run on Conservative labels
            >and in fact are little religious dictators trying to legislate our
            >personal choices. There is no expensive federal bill they will not
            >vote for if the King of the Hill (G.W. Bush) requests it. In my
            >point of view, they are not Conservative but simply religious wackos
            >who will not allow our freedoms to remain our own. I would like to
            >see them all thrown out of office in 2006!

            I see them all as doing exactly what they should do given the job
            description. Represent 280 million individuals???? Please, that's
            ubsurd. Spend a few hours questioning why it makes sense to ask 2
            senators to act in the "best interest of each individual of Arizona",
            and so on down the line of Representatives.

            My conclusion fresh into college was, "that's impossible!" Maybe
            what these reps should be doing (and are actually doing) is: attempt
            to discover what is best for every human, and then pass a law to
            ensure they each do so. At the time, it sounded doable to me. Now
            however, I recognize the fact that NO HUMAN ON EARTH KNOWS ME LIKE I
            KNOW ME. Let me decide...for me!

            >My definition of a Fiscal Conservative is as follows: A desire for
            >limited government; individual freedoms guaranteed and personal
            >responsibilities given back to all Americans. Anything less than
            >this would be unacceptable to me. We had these freedoms when I was
            >growing up and they are now being removed by an intrusive form of
            >government that would have been totally unacceptable during the
            >writing of the Constitution.

            Understood.

            >Where to start on waste and abuse of our taxes? Unless you follow
            >the actions of the U.S. Congress, you will never know. Do the
            >research and you will see the billions of dollars that are spent on
            >pork issues simply to buy the votes of the U.S. Congress members.

            Any substance that I earn which is forcably removed from my
            possession becomes pork, IMO. Withholding taxes using the threat of
            jail time (USC Title 26) is that force. Assuming authority over
            individuals, like a god, the US government and State governments give
            those with the guns the power/force to do as they "see fit".
            See fit = public's interest.

            > Sandy Price

            Nice to meet you electronically, Sandy.

            Jack
            "skip the vote!"
          • Sandra Price
            Look guys, I have been actively involved in politics since 1950. My entire family had been Republicans who demanded a limited government from the D.C. right
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 9, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Look guys, I have been actively involved in politics since 1950. My entire
              family had been Republicans who demanded a limited government from the D.C.
              right down to the state Capital in California. Even in those early years,
              the more people who immigrated to America demanded government programs to
              take care of them. This was absolutely harmful to people from coast to
              coast. It was obscene for Ike to fight communism by adding "Under God" into
              our pledge of allegiance and it seemed to most of us the first step to tell
              the world that America was a Christian nation. None of us could believe
              that the American people actually accepted this, but many did.



              After WW2, we had millions of non-Christians immigrating to America and
              they were welcomed with open arms by all of us because we felt that our own
              scientific and defense areas of expertise could use an influence of European
              scientists and weapons designers. Sadly our own government schools had
              begun to falter in their quality of academic education and it was just the
              first attempt at dumbing down the children of America. Why would the
              Governors of the states allow this decline of academics to happen?



              When the immigrants put their children in our government schools (Public
              schools) they were horrified at the level of achievement desired from these
              schools. Many private schools had begun to pop up and many of the new
              immigrants poured into them. In California where my family had lived for
              generations, the study of why the schools were lacking in academics was made
              and it came down to ill-prepared teachers who could not keep up with the new
              math and science subjects and they began to rewrite the curriculum to suit
              what they could teach.



              A deeper study showed that with our missile programs coming to a slowdown
              and the wars taking the focus from our local governments who were bidding
              for the big contracts, our world of independent freedoms was beginning to
              decline.



              The key to the success of America is academic education from first grade and
              it seemed to fade out. By the time my own kids were starting to learn about
              the world, it was obvious that our public schools were boring the hell out
              of the kids and many social issues began to surface within the
              neighborhoods. I had been bored in the lower grades and I was sent to a
              private school where I began to catch the thrill of books. I couldn't get
              enough books to read and decided to do the same for my children. We had no
              television in the home but a large selection of books on everything. I
              would read aloud to my kids and then turn that over to the oldest to read to
              the youngest and our world became a theater of all the great books in
              literature that had been written. We spent a couple of years on science
              fiction to broaden their view of t he world.



              Instead of drugs, my kids got into horse and dog breeding and even when in
              highschool took many classes from the community colleges in things like
              agriculture and health studies. There friends simply sat in front of the
              boob tube soaking up ads on things they wanted their parents to buy for
              them.



              We became interested in evolution and how 2 generations of Americans had
              folded up their brains for television shows and cartoons. It is essential
              to become proactive in our lives and take the personal responsibility for
              what we do as well as what we are. My kids are all actively working for
              American freedoms, how to survive without killing the people of other
              countries and how to protect what is left of our freedoms which are being
              squelched by a corrupt form of government.



              We are way ahead of just sitting and whining but we are actively searching
              for leaders who will work to keep the government out of our lives. The
              whole purpose of the FSP was to get out from under an oppressive and
              redundant government.



              So we can be active or not; whatever suits us. I keep a very close eye on
              my state government as well as the federal intrusion into my personal
              decisions and will search for candidates and vote them into office. I do
              know that the bunch we have in Arizona are terrified of working for freedom
              and will do anything suggested by President Bush and will turn Arizona into
              a mud room for the rest of the nation.



              FSP knows the dangers of ignoring their children's education and they are
              working to build the kind of schools they feel are necessary. I did the
              same thing only took a couple of jobs to pay for private schools. It has
              paid off as all the kids are professionals and are helping others to get out
              of the boring routines taught by the homes and schools.



              Sandy



              -----Original Message-----
              From: arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of olehenry1
              Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 11:42 PM
              To: arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [arizonaporcupines] Re: I'm new to this forum



              Hi sandy,

              We have quite a few differences in definitions as well as the
              importance/significance of some words. I hope you can appreciate
              this and are willing to patiently communicate with me.

              Additionally, I have no desire to win a conversation. If my
              sentences appear to be charged with mindless emotion, please do not
              take offense. There may actually be some good points hidden in the
              passion (feel free to ignore what you see as rotten fruit and
              instead, pick the good stuff).

              --- In arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com, "Sandra Price" <s@r...>
              wrote:
              > Olehenry1. You have your freedom not to vote or get involved in
              anyway with
              > local or federal government decisions but then you have no right to
              complain
              > about the government's decisions.

              I feel it is "right" of me to complain (I assume you mean critique,
              analyze, disassemble scientifically as I don't practice complaining
              since rarely do I feel great suffering) about actions taken by men of
              the "government club". I feel it is equally right of me to critique
              past actions of ANY organizations as well as individuals so that I
              may learn and possibly relate ideas with others.

              I've heard the one-liner, "If ya Don't vote, you have no right to
              complain about what they vote for."
              Incorrect.
              If 51% voted to kill the 25% of voters who happened to vote "yea" for
              their lives, this 25% have a right to complain. If that 51% also
              voted to kill the 24% of nonvoters, those nonvoters have no right to
              complain?

              Why?

              >I personally have had some wonderful victories in dealing with
              >heavy-handed politicians when I lived in California and we managed
              >to put controls on our property taxes when many of our seniors, on
              >fixed incomes, were forced to sell their homes. It took hard work
              >from one end of California to the other but the voters themselves
              >put a limit on the taxes they had to pay. We forced the State to
              >act fiscally instead of their never-ending billing the residents of
              >the states to pay for services we did not want.

              Superficially (without more information), I commend your efforts.
              I do have a problem however with your use of "we". I assume you mean
              ALL Californians, or maybe ALL seniors, or maybe ALL female
              Californians, or maybe ALL of your friends... did your new law which
              was enforced on ALL Californians satisfy ALL Californians?

              >I am a Fiscal Conservative in the same way that Barry Goldwater was
              >running his campaign in 1964. He felt the government had no place
              >in our education standards, our personal choices, or our family
              >values. He wanted the Federal powers scaled back to fit the job
              >description in the Constitution.

              One problem I see generally with the Constitution is simply this: in
              order to get where we are today, we had to have the Constitution as a
              starting point. I have proof that the Constitution is the "1st
              cause" of where we are today...proof: a 200+ year case study. :)

              >At this time, the Feds issue mandates for the States to follow and
              >these are often redundant and too costly for the tax payers to pay.
              >The Federal government has one single purpose and that is to protect
              >American citizens from foreign attack; which to me, means protecting
              >our borders and all forms of transportation entering the country.
              >They have failed on this due to a heavy influence of Social issues
              >that they are not equipped to handle.

              >In America we all have our own individual standards (moral and
              >ethical) and the Federal Government has no business setting their
              >own social standards on any of us. The States each have their own
              >Constitution where the people themselves have agreed to when these
              >Constitutions were ratified. If the people want, they can change
              >portions of the laws through elections.

              Again, this use of "we" drives home an important point. "We"
              Americans all think alike...but if not, then "we" New Hampshire
              residents all think alike...but maybe not, so then we City of Concord
              residents all think alike...well, guess not...so then...

              Where do you draw the line? Why can't a Federal Gov't make decisions
              for "we"? Why is this different than a State Gov't making decisions
              for "we"? and a city gov't, etc....

              >We have elected Congressional Representatives who have totally
              >ignored our State Constitutions and in doing so have destroyed the
              >10th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution. Our State Rights are being
              >eroded by men like Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, J.D. Hayworth, Shaddeg
              >and both of our Senators in an effort to bring their own religious
              >doctrines into our lives. These men have run on Conservative labels
              >and in fact are little religious dictators trying to legislate our
              >personal choices. There is no expensive federal bill they will not
              >vote for if the King of the Hill (G.W. Bush) requests it. In my
              >point of view, they are not Conservative but simply religious wackos
              >who will not allow our freedoms to remain our own. I would like to
              >see them all thrown out of office in 2006!

              I see them all as doing exactly what they should do given the job
              description. Represent 280 million individuals???? Please, that's
              ubsurd. Spend a few hours questioning why it makes sense to ask 2
              senators to act in the "best interest of each individual of Arizona",
              and so on down the line of Representatives.

              My conclusion fresh into college was, "that's impossible!" Maybe
              what these reps should be doing (and are actually doing) is: attempt
              to discover what is best for every human, and then pass a law to
              ensure they each do so. At the time, it sounded doable to me. Now
              however, I recognize the fact that NO HUMAN ON EARTH KNOWS ME LIKE I
              KNOW ME. Let me decide...for me!

              >My definition of a Fiscal Conservative is as follows: A desire for
              >limited government; individual freedoms guaranteed and personal
              >responsibilities given back to all Americans. Anything less than
              >this would be unacceptable to me. We had these freedoms when I was
              >growing up and they are now being removed by an intrusive form of
              >government that would have been totally unacceptable during the
              >writing of the Constitution.

              Understood.

              >Where to start on waste and abuse of our taxes? Unless you follow
              >the actions of the U.S. Congress, you will never know. Do the
              >research and you will see the billions of dollars that are spent on
              >pork issues simply to buy the votes of the U.S. Congress members.

              Any substance that I earn which is forcably removed from my
              possession becomes pork, IMO. Withholding taxes using the threat of
              jail time (USC Title 26) is that force. Assuming authority over
              individuals, like a god, the US government and State governments give
              those with the guns the power/force to do as they "see fit".
              See fit = public's interest.

              > Sandy Price

              Nice to meet you electronically, Sandy.

              Jack
              "skip the vote!"





              _____

              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



              * Visit your group "arizonaporcupines
              <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arizonaporcupines> " on the web.


              * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              arizonaporcupines-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              <mailto:arizonaporcupines-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


              * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
              <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



              _____



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • olehenry1
              ... My entire ... the D.C. ... years, ... programs to ... coast to ... God into ... to tell ... believe ... If you read the Constitution carefully (not
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 17, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com, "Sandra Price" <s@r...>
                wrote:
                > Look guys, I have been actively involved in politics since 1950.
                My entire
                > family had been Republicans who demanded a limited government from
                the D.C.
                > right down to the state Capital in California. Even in those early
                years,
                > the more people who immigrated to America demanded government
                programs to
                > take care of them. This was absolutely harmful to people from
                coast to
                > coast. It was obscene for Ike to fight communism by adding "Under
                God" into
                > our pledge of allegiance and it seemed to most of us the first step
                to tell
                > the world that America was a Christian nation. None of us could
                believe
                > that the American people actually accepted this, but many did.

                If you read the Constitution carefully (not implying that you have
                not), it is clear that an English speaking person COULD take the
                collective use of language as well as many other explicit statements
                as implying: that each American is to be his/her brother's keeper.
                That is to say, that if one of us is left behind economically (due to
                ANY reason, self inflicted or victimized), the citizens collectively
                must ensure those less fortunate are helped along.

                Section 8 Powers of Congress:
                "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
                Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
                Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
                Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

                This very sentence is vague for sure, but I can come up with all
                kinds of "welfare and defenses" that I "have a right to" based on
                this simple sentence...ones that Congress must consider, especially
                when 51% of voters approve.

                Falling back to the good old days, I argue, means that voters as
                a "united states" must simply be at the whim of the majority voters,
                where each individual is relying on the majority of voters to pass
                laws to ensure our INDIVIDUALIZED needs are met. Even if voters
                tried to erase what has been done and start over with the
                Constitution, voters will simply be setting up America to repeat
                history, more or less.

                > After WW2, we had millions of non-Christians immigrating to
                America and
                > they were welcomed with open arms by all of us because we felt that
                our own
                > scientific and defense areas of expertise could use an influence of
                European
                > scientists and weapons designers. Sadly our own government schools
                had
                > begun to falter in their quality of academic education and it was
                just the
                > first attempt at dumbing down the children of America. Why would
                the
                > Governors of the states allow this decline of academics to happen?

                As if the Governors of the states have expertise on education.
                They're politicians, vote counters, majority supporters.

                > When the immigrants put their children in our government schools
                (Public
                > schools) they were horrified at the level of achievement desired
                from these
                > schools. Many private schools had begun to pop up and many of the
                new
                > immigrants poured into them. In California where my family had
                lived for
                > generations, the study of why the schools were lacking in academics
                was made
                > and it came down to ill-prepared teachers who could not keep up
                with the new
                > math and science subjects and they began to rewrite the curriculum
                to suit
                > what they could teach.
                >
                >
                >
                > A deeper study showed that with our missile programs coming to a
                slowdown
                > and the wars taking the focus from our local governments who were
                bidding
                > for the big contracts, our world of independent freedoms was
                beginning to
                > decline.
                >
                >
                >
                > The key to the success of America is academic education from first
                grade and
                > it seemed to fade out. By the time my own kids were starting to
                learn about
                > the world, it was obvious that our public schools were boring the
                hell out
                > of the kids and many social issues began to surface within the
                > neighborhoods. I had been bored in the lower grades and I was sent
                to a
                > private school where I began to catch the thrill of books. I
                couldn't get
                > enough books to read and decided to do the same for my children.
                We had no
                > television in the home but a large selection of books on
                everything. I
                > would read aloud to my kids and then turn that over to the oldest
                to read to
                > the youngest and our world became a theater of all the great books
                in
                > literature that had been written. We spent a couple of years on
                science
                > fiction to broaden their view of t he world.
                >
                >
                >
                > Instead of drugs, my kids got into horse and dog breeding and even
                when in
                > highschool took many classes from the community colleges in things
                like
                > agriculture and health studies. There friends simply sat in front
                of the
                > boob tube soaking up ads on things they wanted their parents to buy
                for
                > them.
                >
                >
                >
                > We became interested in evolution and how 2 generations of
                Americans had
                > folded up their brains for television shows and cartoons. It is
                essential
                > to become proactive in our lives and take the personal
                responsibility for
                > what we do as well as what we are. My kids are all actively
                working for
                > American freedoms, how to survive without killing the people of
                other
                > countries and how to protect what is left of our freedoms which are
                being
                > squelched by a corrupt form of government.

                Sounds like you've had an enjoyable experience (and more to come)
                with your children. Congrats and here's to (more to come).

                > We are way ahead of just sitting and whining but we are actively
                searching
                > for leaders who will work to keep the government out of our lives.
                The
                > whole purpose of the FSP was to get out from under an oppressive and
                > redundant government.


                IMO, government cannot be anything other than oppresive, and
                especially redundant if 51% approval is all that is needed in order
                to make decisions for EACH INDIVIDUAL.

                > So we can be active or not; whatever suits us. I keep a very close
                eye on
                > my state government as well as the federal intrusion into my
                personal
                > decisions and will search for candidates and vote them into
                office. I do
                > know that the bunch we have in Arizona are terrified of working for
                freedom
                > and will do anything suggested by President Bush and will turn
                Arizona into
                > a mud room for the rest of the nation.
                >
                >
                >
                > FSP knows the dangers of ignoring their children's education and
                they are
                > working to build the kind of schools they feel are necessary. I
                did the
                > same thing only took a couple of jobs to pay for private schools.
                It has
                > paid off as all the kids are professionals and are helping others
                to get out
                > of the boring routines taught by the homes and schools.
                >
                >
                >
                > Sandy

                We appear to agree on many problems with status quo methods of
                protecting freedoms. However, what about the methods of enhancing
                each Individual's actual freedoms?

                Jack
              • christian peper
                for fun I decided to respond: while it is fun to examine small items of the constitution the constitution must be vied as a whole. viewed as whole it is clear
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 17, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  for fun I decided to respond: while it is fun to examine small items of the constitution the constitution must be vied as a whole. viewed as whole it is clear that the current welfare police state is an abomination (both to the founders and god). there will come a time when support of the system will be a clear sin. till that time I will grudgely pay taxes. christian peper
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: olehenry1
                  To: arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:58 PM
                  Subject: [arizonaporcupines] Constitution's limits [was: I'm new to this forum]


                  --- In arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com, "Sandra Price" <s@r...>
                  wrote:
                  > Look guys, I have been actively involved in politics since 1950.
                  My entire
                  > family had been Republicans who demanded a limited government from
                  the D.C.
                  > right down to the state Capital in California. Even in those early
                  years,
                  > the more people who immigrated to America demanded government
                  programs to
                  > take care of them. This was absolutely harmful to people from
                  coast to
                  > coast. It was obscene for Ike to fight communism by adding "Under
                  God" into
                  > our pledge of allegiance and it seemed to most of us the first step
                  to tell
                  > the world that America was a Christian nation. None of us could
                  believe
                  > that the American people actually accepted this, but many did.

                  If you read the Constitution carefully (not implying that you have
                  not), it is clear that an English speaking person COULD take the
                  collective use of language as well as many other explicit statements
                  as implying: that each American is to be his/her brother's keeper.
                  That is to say, that if one of us is left behind economically (due to
                  ANY reason, self inflicted or victimized), the citizens collectively
                  must ensure those less fortunate are helped along.

                  Section 8 Powers of Congress:
                  "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
                  Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
                  Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
                  Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

                  This very sentence is vague for sure, but I can come up with all
                  kinds of "welfare and defenses" that I "have a right to" based on
                  this simple sentence...ones that Congress must consider, especially
                  when 51% of voters approve.

                  Falling back to the good old days, I argue, means that voters as
                  a "united states" must simply be at the whim of the majority voters,
                  where each individual is relying on the majority of voters to pass
                  laws to ensure our INDIVIDUALIZED needs are met. Even if voters
                  tried to erase what has been done and start over with the
                  Constitution, voters will simply be setting up America to repeat
                  history, more or less.

                  > After WW2, we had millions of non-Christians immigrating to
                  America and
                  > they were welcomed with open arms by all of us because we felt that
                  our own
                  > scientific and defense areas of expertise could use an influence of
                  European
                  > scientists and weapons designers. Sadly our own government schools
                  had
                  > begun to falter in their quality of academic education and it was
                  just the
                  > first attempt at dumbing down the children of America. Why would
                  the
                  > Governors of the states allow this decline of academics to happen?

                  As if the Governors of the states have expertise on education.
                  They're politicians, vote counters, majority supporters.

                  > When the immigrants put their children in our government schools
                  (Public
                  > schools) they were horrified at the level of achievement desired
                  from these
                  > schools. Many private schools had begun to pop up and many of the
                  new
                  > immigrants poured into them. In California where my family had
                  lived for
                  > generations, the study of why the schools were lacking in academics
                  was made
                  > and it came down to ill-prepared teachers who could not keep up
                  with the new
                  > math and science subjects and they began to rewrite the curriculum
                  to suit
                  > what they could teach.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > A deeper study showed that with our missile programs coming to a
                  slowdown
                  > and the wars taking the focus from our local governments who were
                  bidding
                  > for the big contracts, our world of independent freedoms was
                  beginning to
                  > decline.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The key to the success of America is academic education from first
                  grade and
                  > it seemed to fade out. By the time my own kids were starting to
                  learn about
                  > the world, it was obvious that our public schools were boring the
                  hell out
                  > of the kids and many social issues began to surface within the
                  > neighborhoods. I had been bored in the lower grades and I was sent
                  to a
                  > private school where I began to catch the thrill of books. I
                  couldn't get
                  > enough books to read and decided to do the same for my children.
                  We had no
                  > television in the home but a large selection of books on
                  everything. I
                  > would read aloud to my kids and then turn that over to the oldest
                  to read to
                  > the youngest and our world became a theater of all the great books
                  in
                  > literature that had been written. We spent a couple of years on
                  science
                  > fiction to broaden their view of t he world.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Instead of drugs, my kids got into horse and dog breeding and even
                  when in
                  > highschool took many classes from the community colleges in things
                  like
                  > agriculture and health studies. There friends simply sat in front
                  of the
                  > boob tube soaking up ads on things they wanted their parents to buy
                  for
                  > them.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > We became interested in evolution and how 2 generations of
                  Americans had
                  > folded up their brains for television shows and cartoons. It is
                  essential
                  > to become proactive in our lives and take the personal
                  responsibility for
                  > what we do as well as what we are. My kids are all actively
                  working for
                  > American freedoms, how to survive without killing the people of
                  other
                  > countries and how to protect what is left of our freedoms which are
                  being
                  > squelched by a corrupt form of government.

                  Sounds like you've had an enjoyable experience (and more to come)
                  with your children. Congrats and here's to (more to come).

                  > We are way ahead of just sitting and whining but we are actively
                  searching
                  > for leaders who will work to keep the government out of our lives.
                  The
                  > whole purpose of the FSP was to get out from under an oppressive and
                  > redundant government.


                  IMO, government cannot be anything other than oppresive, and
                  especially redundant if 51% approval is all that is needed in order
                  to make decisions for EACH INDIVIDUAL.

                  > So we can be active or not; whatever suits us. I keep a very close
                  eye on
                  > my state government as well as the federal intrusion into my
                  personal
                  > decisions and will search for candidates and vote them into
                  office. I do
                  > know that the bunch we have in Arizona are terrified of working for
                  freedom
                  > and will do anything suggested by President Bush and will turn
                  Arizona into
                  > a mud room for the rest of the nation.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > FSP knows the dangers of ignoring their children's education and
                  they are
                  > working to build the kind of schools they feel are necessary. I
                  did the
                  > same thing only took a couple of jobs to pay for private schools.
                  It has
                  > paid off as all the kids are professionals and are helping others
                  to get out
                  > of the boring routines taught by the homes and schools.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Sandy

                  We appear to agree on many problems with status quo methods of
                  protecting freedoms. However, what about the methods of enhancing
                  each Individual's actual freedoms?

                  Jack




                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                  a.. Visit your group "arizonaporcupines" on the web.

                  b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  arizonaporcupines-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • olehenry1
                  ... items of the constitution the constitution must be vied as a whole. viewed as whole it is clear that the current welfare police state is an abomination
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 25, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com, "christian peper"
                    <cbp429@h...> wrote:
                    > for fun I decided to respond: while it is fun to examine small
                    items >of the constitution the constitution must be vied as a whole.
                    viewed >as whole it is clear that the current welfare police state is
                    an >abomination (both to the founders and god).

                    Hi Christian (meaning Christ follower, correct?)

                    Here is Section 8 in its entirety:

                    "Section 8 - Powers of Congress

                    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
                    Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
                    Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
                    Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
                    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
                    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
                    States, and with the Indian Tribes;
                    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
                    the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
                    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
                    fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
                    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
                    current Coin of the United States;
                    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
                    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
                    limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
                    respective Writings and Discoveries;
                    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
                    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
                    Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
                    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
                    concerning Captures on Land and Water;
                    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
                    Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
                    To provide and maintain a Navy;
                    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
                    Forces;
                    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
                    Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
                    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
                    for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
                    the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
                    Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
                    Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
                    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
                    District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
                    particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
                    the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
                    over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
                    State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
                    Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
                    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
                    into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by
                    this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
                    Department or Officer thereof."
                    ******

                    The so-called "public" has a lot of duties according to this
                    document. Very (un)clearly for example, it states that the federal
                    government can regulate commerce between the states. I can point out
                    a number of abominable Uniformity Acts and numerous commerce laws
                    which naturally DID occur with reference to the Constitution.

                    What about the two ideas of providing for general welfare and common
                    defense? These are not insignificant statements and are not at all
                    out of context.

                    Why does the Constitution give the so-called "the people" imagined
                    authority over a "POST OFFICE AND POST ROADS"? Why do you support
                    this tax-dollar enhanced monopoly?

                    To promote the progress of sciences and arts...takes money. Where do
                    you suppose "the people" are going to get the money? What do you
                    suppose it takes in order for "the people" to feel justified in
                    confiscating your money? It takes 51%; they add in big guns for
                    effect.

                    The Constitution is poorly written. The Constitution is prepared and
                    ready for interpretation. Once an interpretation is agreed on by 51%
                    of voters, VIOLA! you have a new law forced on 100% of voters and
                    100% of nonvoters. A new law funded by 100% of voters and nonvoters.

                    Attempting to RE-interpret the founding documents is going to get us
                    nowhere again and again. Maybe a fun game to play for some,
                    frustratingly retarded to me.

                    Please offer arguments (using the Constitution or other "legal" docs)
                    supporting use of such documents for developing a place in which
                    you'd like to live.

                    >there will come a time when support of the system will be a clear
                    >sin. till that time I >will grudgely pay taxes. christian peper

                    Define sin.
                    Define system. Every system?
                    What will make it clear for you?
                    Until this time of clarity, I assume paying taxes would not be
                    negative to you.

                    Everyone of these words typed above was accomplished while in a
                    smiley, joyous disposition. Want you to know that I have nothing but
                    warm regard for you. Therefore, this writing is intended to
                    encourage a pleasureable investigation into our minds.

                    Jack
                  • christian peper
                    My name is Christian, and yes, I am a follower of Christ. christianity has been stolen by the elite, true Christianity is very very socially (but not
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 25, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      My name is Christian, and yes, I am a follower of Christ. christianity has been stolen by the elite, true Christianity is very very socially (but not fiscally) liberal. jeasus would support legal drugs, gay marriage etc. as for the Constitution, yes, it was a bit vague and subject to interpretation like the bible but the overall thrust of it is without a drought very liberal. the the bible is also very freeing and libertarian: living under the law of love and not the written law (see the sermon on the mount). do you know that Jesus baptized with hemp oil? best wishes, chistian
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: olehenry1
                      To: arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:46 PM
                      Subject: [arizonaporcupines] Re: Constitution's limits


                      --- In arizonaporcupines@yahoogroups.com, "christian peper"
                      <cbp429@h...> wrote:
                      > for fun I decided to respond: while it is fun to examine small
                      items >of the constitution the constitution must be vied as a whole.
                      viewed >as whole it is clear that the current welfare police state is
                      an >abomination (both to the founders and god).

                      Hi Christian (meaning Christ follower, correct?)

                      Here is Section 8 in its entirety:

                      "Section 8 - Powers of Congress

                      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
                      Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
                      Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
                      Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
                      To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
                      To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
                      States, and with the Indian Tribes;
                      To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
                      the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
                      To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
                      fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
                      To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
                      current Coin of the United States;
                      To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
                      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
                      limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
                      respective Writings and Discoveries;
                      To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
                      To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
                      Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
                      To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
                      concerning Captures on Land and Water;
                      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
                      Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
                      To provide and maintain a Navy;
                      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
                      Forces;
                      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
                      Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
                      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
                      for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
                      the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
                      Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
                      Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
                      To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
                      District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
                      particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
                      the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
                      over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
                      State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
                      Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
                      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
                      into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by
                      this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
                      Department or Officer thereof."
                      ******

                      The so-called "public" has a lot of duties according to this
                      document. Very (un)clearly for example, it states that the federal
                      government can regulate commerce between the states. I can point out
                      a number of abominable Uniformity Acts and numerous commerce laws
                      which naturally DID occur with reference to the Constitution.

                      What about the two ideas of providing for general welfare and common
                      defense? These are not insignificant statements and are not at all
                      out of context.

                      Why does the Constitution give the so-called "the people" imagined
                      authority over a "POST OFFICE AND POST ROADS"? Why do you support
                      this tax-dollar enhanced monopoly?

                      To promote the progress of sciences and arts...takes money. Where do
                      you suppose "the people" are going to get the money? What do you
                      suppose it takes in order for "the people" to feel justified in
                      confiscating your money? It takes 51%; they add in big guns for
                      effect.

                      The Constitution is poorly written. The Constitution is prepared and
                      ready for interpretation. Once an interpretation is agreed on by 51%
                      of voters, VIOLA! you have a new law forced on 100% of voters and
                      100% of nonvoters. A new law funded by 100% of voters and nonvoters.

                      Attempting to RE-interpret the founding documents is going to get us
                      nowhere again and again. Maybe a fun game to play for some,
                      frustratingly retarded to me.

                      Please offer arguments (using the Constitution or other "legal" docs)
                      supporting use of such documents for developing a place in which
                      you'd like to live.

                      >there will come a time when support of the system will be a clear
                      >sin. till that time I >will grudgely pay taxes. christian peper

                      Define sin.
                      Define system. Every system?
                      What will make it clear for you?
                      Until this time of clarity, I assume paying taxes would not be
                      negative to you.

                      Everyone of these words typed above was accomplished while in a
                      smiley, joyous disposition. Want you to know that I have nothing but
                      warm regard for you. Therefore, this writing is intended to
                      encourage a pleasureable investigation into our minds.

                      Jack




                      SPONSORED LINKS Politics Government American politics
                      Conservative politics Organizational politics Associates


                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                      a.. Visit your group "arizonaporcupines" on the web.

                      b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      arizonaporcupines-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.