Most important issue we face in America

[Conflict]

I think our best defense against terrorists, however, are men who are real men who do not tolerate those who threaten their family and neighbors. Such men (and women) won't advocate tolerance of dangerous people in the name of some kind of misguided political correctness. Traditional values demand that elected leaders do whatever it necessary to ensure the safety of all the people however politically incorrect it might be. And traditional family values requires people to step up to the plate and do what they reasonably can to ensure the safety and sanctity of their families, communities, and country.

Family Values are good for us in this country but they in no way relate to unconstitutional warfare. We have principles in this nation which exceed family values. More so they are deemed as issues of National Security. National Security exists within our nation or may be opposed abroad only by the virtue of reasonable doubt of an eminent threat posed against us.

What happens when this "reasonable doubt" turns out to be quite unreasonable is exactly what we are seeing in U.S. politics today.

To cite the concept of war or invoke the plight of insurgency for the benefit of traditional family value is taking it a step too far in my opinion.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Family Values are good for us in this country but they in no way relate to unconstitutional warfare. We have principles in this nation which exceed family values. More so they are deemed as issues of National Security. National Security exists within our nation or may be opposed abroad only by the virtue of reasonable doubt of an eminent threat posed against us.

What happens when this "reasonable doubt" turns out to be quite unreasonable is exactly what we are seeing in U.S. politics today.

To cite the concept of war or invoke the plight of insurgency for the benefit of traditional family value is taking it a step too far in my opinion.

Traditional family values is very strong on ethics. It is wrong to persecute people because of the color of their skin or their ethnicity or their country of origin. It is not wrong to defend one's family, community, or nation from those who would do violence. There is nothing in the constitution re what is 'constituonal warfare'. The constitution only requires consent of the Executive and Legislative branches of government to engage in warfare. Strong family values would dictate that a principle of right and wrong be employed in deciding whether or not war shall be engaged.'

Strong family values does not bow to world opinion or give deference to those who do not have our best interests in mind.

 

[Conflict]

There is nothing in the constitution re what is 'constituonal warfare'. The constitution only requires consent of the Executive and Legislative branches of government to engage in warfare. Strong family values would dictate that a principle of right and wrong be employed in deciding whether or not war shall be engaged.'

The constitution defines our defense and maintenance of our our liberties through a concept of national security via a constituency. It is not the responsibility of the citizens to uphold the security of our nation in physical terms. That is why we have a military, an executive branch, a judicial branch, and legislative branch. All of these various forms of government are meant to protect us as constituents... not as belligerants.


Were you being sardonistic in citing the executive and legistalive branch? Or do you really think any of them actually care about family value? Sincere inquisition.

 

[AlbqOwl]

There is nothing in the constitution re what is 'constituonal warfare'. The constitution only requires consent of the Executive and Legislative branches of government to engage in warfare. Strong family values would dictate that a principle of right and wrong be employed in deciding whether or not war shall be engaged.'
QUOTE]

The constition defines our defense and maintenance of our our liberties through a concept of national security. It is not the responsibility of the citizens to uphold the security of our nation in physical terms. That is why we have a military.

Were you being sardonistic in citing the executive and legistalive branch? Or do you really think any of them actuall care about family value? Sincere inquisition.

Re-read the Second Amendment and you will see that the constitution anticipated that there could and would be need for the public to take up arms for their own defense. It is only when each citizen does assume responsibility for the peace and safety of his/her community will we see crime become an infrequent occurence instead of a daily occurence. And that includes crimes committed or anticipated by terrorists.

And yes, I do think some in the executive and legislative branches care about family values, but it is politically incorrect to push these in today's upside down cultural environment. When enough people see what we have lost by dismissing traditional family values as unimportant, the pendulum can swing back and our government will respond to demands that traditional family values be the norm rather than the exception.

 

[Conflict]

Re-read the Second Amendment and you will see that the constitution anticipated that there could and would be need for the public to take up arms for their own defense. It is only when each citizen does assume responsibility for the peace and safety of his/her community will we see crime become an infrequent occurence instead of a daily occurence. And that includes crimes committed or anticipated by terrorists.

And yes, I do think some in the executive and legislative branches care about family values, but it is politically incorrect to push these in today's upside down cultural environment. When enough people see what we have lost by dismissing traditional family values as unimportant, the pendulum can swing back and our government will respond to demands that traditional family values be the norm rather than the exception.

My interpretation of your citation of the 2nd ammendment deals more with the concept of civil liberty and domestic insurgency than it does anything. I think it's reference pertains more towards conflicts of civil war and the proliferation of liberty... not the installation and dictation of democracy. We are a republic first and foremost.

I do not argue with your belief on family value. I agree completely. Perhaps it is only the application of such belief and the overbearing ramifications of the application that seem a bit extreme to me. Yes if someone were to invade our country then we would have constitutional right to fend them off by any means necessary. However I think we are crossing a line in terms of spreading such a belief into a global diatribe.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

All this is crap because of what I posted in the eighth post of this thread:

nuclear holocaust and the annihilation of the human race.

you now have nuclear capable countries (Iran-Pakistan-Israel-India-China) that hate eachother alot more and who are alot less stable than were the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War.

 

[AlbqOwl]

All this is crap because of what I posted in the eighth post of this thread:

None of those countries have yet threatened to 'bury us'. The USSR did.

 

[AlbqOwl]

My interpretation of your citation of the 2nd ammendment deals more with the concept of civil liberty and domestic insurgency than it does anything. I think it's reference pertains more towards conflicts of civil war and the proliferation of liberty... not the installation and dictation of democracy. We are a republic first and foremost.

I do not argue with your belief on family value. I agree completely. Perhaps it is only the application of such belief and the overbearing ramifications of the application that seem a bit extreme to me. Yes if someone were to invade our country then we would have constitutional right to fend them off by any means necessary. However I think we are crossing a line in terms of spreading such a belief into a global diatribe.

Overbearing ramifications? Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by this? What is your definition of 'extreme'?

In application of defense in traditional family values, the adults in the family first and foremost can and do control the activities of their children and thus prevent many dangerous situations that the less mature might get themselves into. And the adults lead by example, not by dictate. And, if anyone in the family is threatened, the adults will do what they have to do to defend and protect.

Further, when it comes to national defense, traditional family values would likely condone military service but would certainly get behind the Commander in Chief and the military and let them know we have their back when there are boots on the ground in harms way. We can let the enemy know in no uncertain terms that the American people, whether or not they put on a uniform, are behind our military forces and that we will settle for nothing less than complete and final victory. This I believe is the responsibility of every American and I believe it would greatly shorten the time of hostilities and would save many lives.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think our best defense against terrorists, however, are men who are real men who do not tolerate those who threaten their family and neighbors. Such men (and women) won't advocate tolerance of dangerous people in the name of some kind of misguided political correctness. Traditional values demand that elected leaders do whatever it necessary to ensure the safety of all the people however politically incorrect it might be. And traditional family values requires people to step up to the plate and do what they reasonably can to ensure the safety and sanctity of their families, communities, and country.

The problem is you have men in our very own congress through their misguided beliefs threaten the very family values you are talking about and it is getting worse every day........

 

[AlbqOwl]

The problem is you have men in our very own congress through their misguided beliefs threaten the very family values you are talking about and it is getting worse every day........

Women too. That fact and other assaults on traditional family values by the ACLU and others are precisely why I checked that as the most important issue we face in America today.

 

[tryreading]

I was using the term could (or the presumed usage of the word "would") as an example of the counter-ideology put forth by comments made on this thread, collectively. You assume I was speaking directly to you. You were not the subject of my comments. The issue at hand (or of this particular thread) is/was. Don't take it personally and with all due respect such personal attacks regarding my communication skills are completely unecessary. Thanks.

You responded directly to my post. I didn't take anything personally, just offered some advice. Also, if I attacked you, it was a pretty mild attack. Also, could is not definite. In my scenarios, the idea was that if a particular thing occured, then my prediction would happen.

 

[tryreading]

I know I'm going to be crucified for this, but I checked "Preserving Family Values" as the most important issue we face in America.

I worry about you. Over on the 'ACLU' poll, you were a persecuted Christian. Now, the crucification thing. We only want to argue here, not nail you to the wall. (Before you get too militant, this is not meant to be serious).

I have a family, and it has a healthy set of values. I bet you do too. The folks who agreed with your post do too, I'm sure.

Now, with that distraction aside, what we need to do is work with other countries to contain all nuclear material that exists, and stop further proliferation. Second, biological threats must be pursued, and destroyed. Third, our transportation (planes) system has to be protected better, including the screening of all cargo, and our infrastructure guarded as well as possible. Fourth, our borders, especially with Mexico, are not properly protected, which has to be corrected now. Fifth, we need to reach an agreement with the Arab countries to change the poisoned education curriculum that most of them still use, as we can't continue to try to change their systems militarily.

This is not all-inclusive, and not necessarily in the right order after the nuclear and biological threats, but before we worry about family values, lets try to stop the real threats to this country, some of which have the potential to disrupt the way we live profoundly by killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, causing a major depression, curtailing rights, maybe necessitating martial law in many areas. Remember New Orleans? When there are major disasters, family values for some people allow wanton looting and preying on the weaknesses of others. Do you think that talking about family values will prevent this behavior during the next catastrophe? It won't. And all you can do is talk about it, you can't mandate your personal code, or ideals, or religious beliefs be adopted by anybody.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I worry about you. Over on the 'ACLU' poll, you were a persecuted Christian. Now, the crucification thing. We only want to argue here, not nail you to the wall. (Before you get too militant, this is not meant to be serious).

I have a family, and it has a healthy set of values. I bet you do too. The folks who agreed with your post do too, I'm sure.

Now, with that distraction aside, what we need to do is work with other countries to contain all nuclear material that exists, and stop further proliferation. Second, biological threats must be pursued, and destroyed. Third, our transportation (planes) system has to be protected better, including the screening of all cargo, and our infrastructure guarded as well as possible. Fourth, our borders, especially with Mexico, are not properly protected, which has to be corrected now. Fifth, we need to reach an agreement with the Arab countries to change the poisoned education curriculum that most of them still use, as we can't continue to try to change their systems militarily.

This is not all-inclusive, and not necessarily in the right order after the nuclear and biological threats, but before we worry about family values, lets try to stop the real threats to this country, some of which have the potential to disrupt the way we live profoundly by killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, causing a major depression, curtailing rights, maybe necessitating martial law in many areas. Remember New Orleans? When there are major disasters, family values for some people allow wanton looting and preying on the weaknesses of others. Do you think that talking about family values will prevent this behavior during the next catastrophe? It won't. And all you can do is talk about it, you can't mandate your personal code, or ideals, or religious beliefs be adopted by anybody.

As I have never claimed to be a persecuted Christian, I'm sure glad you didn't mean to be serious.

As for the other stuff, if the U.S. has the best shared values, they will elect good people who will do their damndest to do the right thing and all that other stuff will be properly taken care of as well as any single country can take care of it.

 

[Navy Pride]

Here is a flash for our friends on the left.......The Christians in this country are not the bad guys.........

 

[tryreading]

As I have never claimed to be a persecuted Christian, I'm sure glad you didn't mean to be serious.

As for the other stuff, if the U.S. has the best shared values, they will elect good people who will do their damndest to do the right thing and all that other stuff will be properly taken care of as well as any single country can take care of it.

The US does have the highest values of all, I think. But we vote ignorantly, uninformedly, naively (I'm being redundant). We need to vote based on well rounded knowledge of the candidates, and what the country needs functionally.

 

[tryreading]

Here is a flash for our friends on the left.......The Christians in this country are not the bad guys.........

Sure they are. There are many hateful, bigoted, wicked Christians. And Jews, and Muslims, and people of no faith. But all of the above are the good guys, too.

 

[Navy Pride]

Sure they are. There are many hateful, bigoted, wicked Christians. And Jews, and Muslims, and people of no faith. But all of the above are the good guys, too.

You can not condemn all Christian, Jews, and Moselms for the actions of a few..........

 

[tryreading]

You can not condemn all Christian, Jews, and Moselms for the actions of a few..........

I didn't. My point was that there is good and bad in Christianity, like in all faiths, and in the non-faiths. You said the Christians aren't the bad guys, but some of them are.

I think, sir, you misspelled Muslim deliberately above because you like them a little less than the Christians and Jews. This is not nice, and I rebuke you.

 

[Navy Pride]

I didn't. My point was that there is good and bad in Christianity, like in all faiths, and in the non-faiths. You said the Christians aren't the bad guys, but some of them are.

I think, sir, you misspelled Muslim deliberately above because you like them a little less than the Christians and Jews. This is not nice, and I rebuke you.

When I say the Christians I am saying the vast majority of them.......

Nah, not true.I am just a bad typist..........The only Muslims I don't like are the ones that fly airplanes into our building and I am not interested in finding out why they do it like some of my left wing friends...I just want to kill them........

 

[tryreading]

When I say the Christians I am saying the vast majority of them.......

Nah, not true.I am just a bad typist..........The only Muslims I don't like are the ones that fly airplanes into our building and I am not interested in finding out why they do it like some of my left wing friends...I just want to kill them........

Of course, I was kidding about the Muslim misspelling thing.

I don't like the airplane suiciders either, or care why they do it. I wish we could kill them all, but we need help from their home countries to destroy the terrorists.

 

[Navy Pride]

Of course, I was kidding about the Muslim misspelling thing.

I don't like the airplane suiciders either, or care why they do it. I wish we could kill them all, but we need help from their home countries to destroy the terrorists.

And that is exactly what we are trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq........

 

[teacher]

Will Nick and Jessica break up?

Closely followed by terrorists getting nukes.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

It is not the responsibility of the citizens to uphold the security of our nation in physical terms.

Say what? It is precisely because the citizens are ultimately responsible for the security of this nation that the Constitution grants the House of Representatives sole authority to declare war.

It is precisely because the citizens are responsible for the public defense that each state had it's own militia.

It is precisely because the citizens are responsible for the public defense that an elected official is the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces.

And it precisely because the citizens were the final watchdog against tyranny by their own government that the Constitution has the Second Amendment.

I voted "other" in the poll, and was going to say that apathy was the nation's biggest problem, not that anyone cares, but perhaps ignorance of our own history is the top problem.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

My interpretation of your citation of the 2nd ammendment deals more with the concept of civil liberty and domestic insurgency than it does anything. I think it's reference pertains more towards conflicts of civil war and the proliferation of liberty... not the installation and dictation of democracy. We are a republic first and foremost.

Supports my point. If the citizens had gotten dead asses off their couches and demanded that their congressmen issue a formal declaration of war before Bush acted in Iraq, I can almost guarantee that Iraq wouldn't be the issue it now is.


An idea lifted from Robert Heinlein ("We the Living"):

A proposed amendment to the Constutition:
The power to declare war shall be removed from Congress and granted directly to the people via a plebescite. A two thirds vote is required to start a conflict, and those persons voting "Yes" shall be automatically enlisted in the armed services they will lead the first charge.

Works for me. Clearly ALL members of the US House and Senate are corrupt self-serving special interest ass-kissing did I already say corrupt vermin who can't be trusted to run a lemonade stand, let alone the world's only superpower. (Don't forget the White House, too!)

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

None of those countries have yet threatened to 'bury us'. The USSR did.

umm Iran???