Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Who Did You Vote For?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Joeychgo

Its Super Tuesday --- Who Did You Vote For?

I voted for Ron Paul...

Posted by: midi_junkie

trent reznor.

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Its Super Tuesday --- Who Did You Vote For?

I voted for Ron Paul...

Good Job Joey!!

Posted by: fossten

Joey...

Wow.

How many times have we disagreed on things? I have to admit that even though I thought I was right about the issues we discussed, I was definitely wrong about you.

You are the MAN.

By the way, I've decided to be a precinct leader here in Louisville and drum up Ron Paul votes for our primary, which isn't until May. I have never in my life (until now) actively participated in a campaign. I have never in my life (until now) contributed any money to a candidate for public office. Ron Paul has inspired me.

Posted by: Jayce 1971

That'd be great with all the votes for Ron Paul. Unfortunately it's our little microcosm, so I gotta go out and rattle some voters. Talk to ya later!

Posted by: turborich

RON PAUL!!!

I think that Ron Paul would be good for this country as would Fred Thompson, Too bad the american people rejected Thompson & Paul has not been given a fair shot by the media.

I think that Hillary, Obama & McCain all suck!

I liked Bill clinton, but Hillary just doesn't seem genuine, Obama's father was a radical Musslim & that concerns me, + I think think that somebody would try to kill him & he is just too far left for me, and then we have good ol' McCain who I always felt was against his own party on way too many issues & he flat out sucks! He is pretty old too, I think he is 71.

I am sick of Hillary & Obama always talking about 'RACE' & Hillary is probally the worse about doing it. If This is our choice after the primaries then I will probally have to side with McCain in the general election. Still a crappy choice though IMO! Maybe a miracle will happen & the american people will wake up. Aint holding my breath though.

Oh well just my 2 cents.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Joey...

Wow.

How many times have we disagreed on things? I have to admit that even though I thought I was right about the issues we discussed, I was definitely wrong about you.

How many times have I told you I wasnt either democrat nor republican and that im not as liberal as you make me out to be?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Its Super Tuesday --- Who Did You Vote For?

I voted for Ron Paul...

I can respect that.

Aren't you registered as an independant? Does Illinois allow independants to vote in the primary?

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Joey...

Wow.

How many times have we disagreed on things? I have to admit that even though I thought I was right about the issues we discussed, I was definitely wrong about you.

You are the MAN.

By the way, I've decided to be a precinct leader here in Louisville and drum up Ron Paul votes for our primary, which isn't until May. I have never in my life (until now) actively participated in a campaign. I have never in my life (until now) contributed any money to a candidate for public office. Ron Paul has inspired me.

Great Job I too am a precinct leader here in my town, we actually door to door beat feet for this campaign. I am so sick and tired of the corrupt evil corporate Elitist bastards who REALLY run this country and it doesnt matter who wins thwey will just pick up where the Idiot left off. RON PAUL all the way!!

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Quote:

Originally Posted by turborich

RON PAUL!!!

I think that Ron Paul would be good for this country as would Fred Thompson, Too bad the american people rejected Thompson & Paul has not been given a fair shot by the media.

I think that Hillary, Obama & McCain all suck!

I liked Bill clinton, but Hillary just doesn't seem genuine, Obama's father was a radical Musslim & that concerns me, + I think think that somebody would try to kill him & he is just too far left for me, and then we have good ol' McCain who I always felt was against his own party on way too many issues & he flat out sucks! He is pretty old too, I think he is 71.

I am sick of Hillary & Obama always talking about 'RACE' & Hillary is probally the worse about doing it. If This is our choice after the primaries then I will probally have to side with McCain in the general election. Still a crappy choice though IMO! Maybe a miracle will happen & the american people will wake up. Aint holding my breath though.

Oh well just my 2 cents.

RICH YOU DA MAN TOO!!!! We HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE!!! Fred Thompson is a TRUE man for the people too!! Its like its the last hope with RP!!

They will rig the elections like they did when Bush "Won" Florida last time around. Hellery, Insane McCain and Ohblahblah are ALL puppets for the BIGGER picture.

I cannot urge people enough to get activated and get EDUCATED about how sick and demonic this Government really is and look at their track records and look at History in general and put all the pieces together yourself, your MIND WILL BEND!!

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONEBADMK8

They will rig the elections like they did when Bush "Won" Florida last time around.

How did they "rig" the Bush election?

Posted by: turborich

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

How did they "rig" the Bush election?

I don't know whether it was rigged or not? All I know is that I voted for this idiot & he has really screwed this country up! Even most right winged republicans can't stand him.

Geno is right about the amount of dirty corrupt things going on. Just imagine all of the stuff going on that we really have no idea about? It's most likely very scary & we couldn't even begin to imagine it. I don't think that we will ever have a JFK or Ronald Regan type ever again. Big business and other players just wouldn't let it happen. The president isn't making decisions for himself. It's a dirty game! We really do need to make a change & stop going with the flow.

You know, 10 years ago if someone told me about the 'new world order' or the 'north american union' I would have looked at them funny, I know better now! It's coming. Canada, the US & mexico will be joined. Look at the NAFTA super highway, it's already started! I'm not some conspiricy nut either, it's just the simple truth.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONEBADMK8

Ohblahblah

Best nickname of the campaign season. LMAO!

Next to Hitlery and HillBilly of course.

And don't forget McKennedy, McAmnesty.

Even the Huckster or Hucka-do-del-do

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Best nickname of the campaign season. LMAO!

Next to Hitlery and HillBilly of course.

I haven't even heard those!!! OMG LMAO!!!

Hitlery is the BEST!! You have all the good ones!!LOL!

Posted by: MonsterMark

...

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Quote:

Originally Posted by turborich

You know, 10 years ago if someone told me about the 'new world order' or the 'north american union' I would have looked at them funny, I know better now! It's coming. Canada, the US & mexico will be joined. Look at the NAFTA super highway, it's already started! I'm not some conspiricy nut either, it's just the simple truth.

Your right Rich your not a nut but thats what they want you to think bud. They want all of us to be Sheeple (Sheep+people) They want all your friends and family to laugh at you and ridicule you and say your a wack job.

Its all about the smoke and mirrors, they want us distracted and medicated and in debt
and living paycheck to paycheck struggling, stressed and so on. It is a plan that has been in motion for MANY years my friends.

When you see the truth its a real life horror movie. You really want your mind bent get this flick

Do your research, stay off BS Controlled media and stick to the net, PBS and C-SPAN the ones with the ONLY NUTS left in the Country of spineless controlled media.

Your rights are going away at an alarming rate, wake up America and see the truth. It is happening NOW! NC Already has chipped Licenses with the new Amero logo on the BACK!!!
This gets no media? Nope, never, why? they want you distracted plain and simple, instead the media is flooded with who Paris Hilton blew this week and Britney Spears 3 am trip to the Rite Aid for a pregnancy test kit!!! CMON WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

I for one and totally terrified, it is incomprhendable what is going on and I will not stand for it, do you want to be them or U.S.?

Stir the pot EVERYWHERE, educate as many people as you can. This is serious.

The REAL War on terror should be held at the steps of the White House.

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Here you go, scary enough?

IN NC right now this second they know where you are at a push of a button, just cannot believe people dont do anything they just sit by and watch, then when it is too late they say "What the hell happened?" Reead on:

North Carolina Residents: Real ID Guinea Pigs
By Jim Palmer
August 8, 2007

A couple of Days ago, I received a phone call from an aide from the office of Representative Jim Guest of Missouri. Jim Guest had recently been to North Carolina, to make more people aware of the Real ID and its negative impact.

Their mission of teaching soon turned into a shocking discovery. While in Raleigh, Representative Guest held up his driver's license to demonstrate what information the current driver's licenses have on them and how much information can be held in a one-dimensional bar code, compared to a two-dimensional bar code. He pointed out that a one-dimensional bar code can hold the information that is on the front of the license. This includes your name, address, license number, etc. A two-dimensional bar code holds enough information to fill a set of encyclopedias.

Before Representative Guest could finish his talking points, a man stood up and said, "My license doesn't have any of that", referring to the one-dimensional bar code. Jim's aide asked him when he obtained his license and he informed the aide it was very recent. The aide looked it over and said that it had the two-dimensional bar code and even more interestingly, it had a hologram with the headlights of a car and an outline of North America. Holograms are often used as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chip.

The danger of RFID technology is that anyone with a scanner can walk by a person with the license and gather their information. That information could include their name, address, date of birth, fingerprints, digital image, social security number and any other information put on the RFID chip.

I was not able to reach anyone by phone at the NC Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), who would or could confirm that driver's licenses are now being issued with a RFID. In fact, no one at the DMV (at least those that I spoke with on the telephone) seemed to know what an RFID chip is.

However, I did reach an examiner in a Wake County Drivers License Office who said North Carolina does use RFID Technology and that she thought it had been in use since November of 2006. I spoke with another DMV employee in Raleigh who informed me that I would need to contact Marge Howell in the communications office. I have tried several times to reach Ms. Howell and only get voicemail. I will post an update after I speak with her.

In a blog posted March 01, 2007 by Jay Ovittore of Greensboro, he describes his run in with the DMV. "I went and got my new NC drivers license today at the local DMV. I had to get my address changed. Come to find out the new issue NCDL has a RFID chip in it. Not only can RFID technology be used to track a location of what it is in, but it can store information as well. It is easily hackable, if you can even call something so easy a hack, with a RFID scanner, which for a price is available to the general public. So I had some questions. I asked the DMV officer if they had any literature for what is going to be stored on the RFID chip, you know like my social security #. I was told, 'What is being stored on the RFID chip's is not going to be public information'. I raised a little hell and then left before I got myself arrested by the Gestapo like officials."

In the Charlotte City-Data forum one user posted their experience with the New North Carolina Driver's License.

"It was a sad day for me today as I called the local DMV. My cousin showed me her Renewed drivers licenses yesterday, and to my surprise there on the back was a new type of hologram. However as I came to find out today thru DMV sources it's not just a hologram it in fact is a new trackable chip. They said in fact it was a new homeland security project for this state. The officer also said that the cards which are trackable is just the first step in the new project, she also stated that other states had their own projects but that eventually all states would in fact be merged into the same system. This news shocked me to say the least but she also added that they were in fact doing facial recognitions as well to go into the database. However, before answering my questions she had a couple of her own such as, why do you want to know? Have you been involved with fake ID's etc. etc. I laughed and assured her that in fact I was just a concerned citizen, and that I found it ironic how we are not the terrorists but that we have to submit to being treated as such. She however didn't seem amused. What as a nation have we allowed? Well as for me my drivers licenses don't expire until 2010, and until I move to a state that doesn't have such a policy or the policy itself is rescinded I'll stick with the ones I have!"

Looking at these posts and getting the information from Representative Jim Guest makes me wonder if the people of North Carolina are being used as Guinea Pigs for the Department of Homeland Security and their implementation of the Real ID.

I wonder how many North Carolinians are aware that they are broadcasting their private information, without even knowing it. How many of them know that an electronic stalker could track their every move? They may not even know that their information will be placed into a database accessible not only by law enforcement and all other DMV's in the United States but by the governments of Mexico and Canada.

Homeland Security will be in charge of this massive data mine. However, they have yet to protect their own computers from being hacked more than 800 times in the past two years! Why would anyone in their right mind hand over all of their sensitive data to an arm of the government that cannot even manage its own systems?

One final note, I can understand the correlation between having a pair of car headlights on your driver's license (even if it is just a clever way to mask the RFID chip), but why the outline of North America? Is this new driver's license going to be the North American ID that will replace the passport to enter Mexico or Canada? Perhaps this system is in place to help forge the way for the North American Union, which the mainstream media outlets are trying hard to ignore away into that black hole, which swallows up important information in favor of reporting the drunken misdeeds of the latest celebrity. Either way, this form of identification that has been proven to be fallible should not be used. The people of North Carolina need to demand that this stop immediately. The people of the United States of America ought to stand with them.

Take Action before you have to renew your license Contact You Legislators at
NC Senators: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...Chamber=Senate

NC House:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...sChamber=House

Your federal Legislators both House and Senate can be located at
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cg...e=ctc&state=nc

Support Representative Jim Guest and Learn more about the Real ID at:
http://www.legislatorsagainstrealid.com

Article found at http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?nam...wtopic&t=76768

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by turborich

I don't know whether it was rigged or not?

Let me answer that for you, it wasn't.

Quote:

All I know is that I voted for this idiot & he has really screwed this country up!

that is distortion unless you can prove it.

Quote:

Geno is right about the amount of dirty corrupt things going on.

No more so then under any other administration.

Quote:

The president isn't making decisions for himself.

Of course not. That is what his advisors are for. Still, he is the one ultimately calling the shots. No evidence otherwise, just speculation and hyperbole

Quote:

It's a dirty game!

That's politics

Quote:

We really do need to make a change & stop going with the flow.

That's just mindless nonsense. Precisely what changes need to be made? It is very easy to say that "we need to change",because things aren't perfect. There is no substance behind it. Might as well say "we need to stop bad things from happening". No substance. You need specifics.

Quote:

Look at the NAFTA super highway, it's already started! I'm not some conspiricy nut either, it's just the simple truth.

No, it isn't "simply truth". It is bases on very questionable evidence (and not much evidence at that), and distortion.

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Prove it? Your kidding right?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONEBADMK8

Here you go, scary enough?

IN NC right now this second they know where you are at a push of a button, just cannot believe people dont do anything they just sit by and watch, then when it is too late they say "What the hell happened?" Reead on:

I read the article...now exactly what constitutional rights are being taken away?

Drive is considered a privillage. As such, a license (and whatever is put on that license) is part of that privillage. Not rights involved that can be taken away.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONEBADMK8

Prove it? Your kidding right?

Nope. You make some claim like that, the burden of proof logically falls on you.

Posted by: MERIJONS97LSC

I've been listening to Obama for months taking about "A TIME FOR CHANGE" I hear you Obama THANK YOU for you encouragement So I listened to Obama and voted for change RON PAUL

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

I can respect that.

Aren't you registered as an independant? Does Illinois allow independants to vote in the primary?

In illinois, you can vote either republican, democrat or no affiliation. For no affiliation, you jsut get the propositions. You can choose differently each election.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

In illinois, you can vote either republican, democrat or no affiliation. For no affiliation, you jsut get the propositions. You can choose differently each election.

I see

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by MERIJONS97LSC

I've been listening to Obama for months taking about "A TIME FOR CHANGE" I hear you Obama THANK YOU for you encouragement So I listened to Obama and voted for change RON PAUL

HA! That's pretty good. While I don't agree with Ron Paul on Foreign Policy, at least there is some substance there.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

HA! That's pretty good. While I don't agree with Ron Paul on Foreign Policy, at least there is some substance there.

I think he would have had more support had he not been so over the top on things. Reduce the Dept of Education significantly - but dont eliminate it. - as just one example.

But, there is substance there and I think he has the right direction.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Oh, domestically I LUV the guy!! I DO think he is a little over the top, as you say. Some of what he says he would do, he couldn't do. He could start the ball roling, though. I do have a HUGE issue with his ideas of foreign policy, and his, frankly wrong interpretation of the constitution in regards to american foreign policy and military usage. Fossten and I are discussing it in the "Founding Fathers on Non-Intervention" thread. Not too sold on his leadership skills either. Not to sure he could get the political support he would need to inact the dramatic changes he talks about. Still, he has more substance then any democrat running as well as being much more up front and honest then McCain, the wicked witch of D.C., or Obama. Gotta luv that.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Yes, I think he could shake things up if nothing else.

My biggest fear is Hillary / Romney ballot. That would, imo, once again, be choosing which bullet I want to be shot with.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

I read the article...now exactly what constitutional rights are being taken away?

The right to privacy. Please, either read 1984 or watch the movie. Please.

Quote:

Drive is considered a privillage. As such, a license (and whatever is put on that license) is part of that privillage. Not rights involved that can be taken away.

It didn't use to be. The government took that over, just like they took over gun registration and started using SWAT teams with choppers and tanks to enforce $200 tax delinquencies.

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

the wicked witch of D.C., Gotta luv that.

OMG thats freakin hilarious!! Keep the Hellary stuff coming this is too funny.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

The right to privacy. Please, either read 1984 or watch the movie. Please.

a broad right to privacy isn't in the constitution. There are specific rights to privacy in the constitution in certian contexts (unreasonable search and seizure, etc.), but there is no overarching "right to privacy" in the constitution. That has been read into the constitution through judicial activism. I am tired, so I really don't wanna go into extensive detail tonight. Will try and come back to this tomorrow. Basically, the "right to privacy" was read into the constitution through the legal fiction that is "fundamental rights". David Limbaugh wrote a good piece on this, I'll see if I can find it.

*edit* found it:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...&comments=true

As the Roberts Supreme Court confirmation hearings approach, it occurs to me that what we need is more than just a vetting of Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy. We're way overdue for a candid national debate, centered in the Senate, about the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional framework.

Senators, in their advice-and-consent role, routinely put judicial nominees on the hot seat about their views on particular constitutional issues, but what about the views of the senators themselves? Who ever asks them what they think about the separation of powers or the doctrine of federalism?

I have this fantasy that some enterprising conservative senator could use the Roberts hearings as an opportunity to initiate this important discussion. Then, instead of just viewing potential Supreme Court justices as policy-making agents to be supported or opposed based on their political views, we could delve into the more relevant issue of constitutional governance.

Perhaps a few days before Judge Roberts submits to his obligatory inquisition and show trial, someone like Sen. Orrin Hatch could call for a senate discussion on judicial philosophy and the constitutional role of the courts. The public is entitled to know which senators foster judicial tyranny by insisting that the courts have the power to rewrite the Constitution.

Wouldn't it be instructive, for example, to ask Sen. Barbara Boxer to justify her requirement that Supreme Court nominees promise to preserve certain "fundamental rights"? Perhaps she could first explain what she means by "fundamental rights." Are these rights that are so rooted in our national tradition that there has always been a consensus as to their existence and indispensability?

How about an unborn child's right to life? Fundamental enough for you? Or, would Boxer be talking instead about a mother's right to abort her child on demand?

If the right to an abortion were fundamental, wouldn't there have been a consensus for it among the individual states long before Roe v. Wade in 1973? But Justice Scalia, in his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reminds us that the opposite is true. Scalia wrote, "the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted [abortion] to be legally proscribed." As such, the right couldn't possibly be considered fundamental in any real sense of that word.

What Boxer and company really mean by "fundamental rights" is rights that have been written into the Constitution by activist judges precisely because they weren't fundamental enough to have been included in the original Constitution or its amendments or uniformly passed into law by federal or state legislative bodies. They mean rights whose continued existence depends upon Supreme Court justices affirming erroneous precedent established by their activist predecessors.

This is much more serious than it sounds. In demanding that would-be justices uphold precedent that has no grounding in the Constitution, Boxer and her like-minded colleagues are trying to extract a commitment from them that they will conspire to disenfranchise the people.

Though they're always boasting that most Americans support abortion rights, these senators obviously don't want to take the chance that Roe will be reversed, because state legislatures may decide to outlaw or more strictly regulate abortion. Thus in the name of protecting "fundamental rights," the will of the people and the integrity of the Constitution, they circumvent the will of the people and undermine the Constitution.

In a nutshell, that's what's so sinister and insidious about this "progressive" notion that the Constitution is an evolving document. When judges can make the Constitution say whatever they want it to without regard to the original understanding of those who signed and ratified it, the fixed basis upon which all our rights depend degenerates from concrete to sand. Our constitutional rights are no more secure than the whims of the unaccountable majority of the current Supreme Court.

I just wish that one time one of these sanctimonious senators started lecturing a nominee about a woman's fundamental "right to choose," another senator or the nominee would have the courage to throw back in his face the sanctity of the Constitution. I wish that one time a ranting senator began railing about the potential loss of "fundamental rights" someone would point out that the extraconstitutional method for creating mythical fundamental rights places in jeopardy our entire constitutional scheme of rights and liberties.

Instead of, or at least preceding, the inevitable rash of pseudo-indignant sermons from constitution-disrespecting senators about "fundamental rights," we would be better served by a national dialogue on the fundamental importance of preserving the original understanding of the Constitution.

Quote:

It didn't use to be. The government took that over, just like they took over gun registration and started using SWAT teams with choppers and tanks to enforce $200 tax delinquencies.

I should clarify; driving on roads built by the government is considered a privilage, not a right.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Yes, I think he could shake things up if nothing else.

Ya, he's really shaking things up with the 4% he just got on Super Tuesday.

It's the messenger.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

I should clarify; driving on roads built by the government is considered a privilege, not a right.

No, driving on roads PAID FOR by its citizens is a right, not a privilege.

The government doesn't provide anything that should be considered a privilege. Without citizens paying into the government, the government doesn't exist.

Right now the government pretty much exists to protect us with a military and to redistribute wealth.

Posted by: turborich

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Let me answer that for you, it wasn't.

that is distortion unless you can prove it.

No more so then under any other administration.

Of course not. That is what his advisors are for. Still, he is the one ultimately calling the shots. No evidence otherwise, just speculation and hyperbole

That's politics

That's just mindless nonsense. Precisely what changes need to be made? It is very easy to say that "we need to change",because things aren't perfect. There is no substance behind it. Might as well say "we need to stop bad things from happening". No substance. You need specifics.

No, it isn't "simply truth". It is bases on very questionable evidence (and not much evidence at that), and distortion.

We are going to have to agree to dis-agree on this. I know better.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

BINGO!!

Quote:

Right now the government pretty much exists to protect us with a military and to redistribute wealth.

...and to tell us how to run our lives.

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Yes, I think he could shake things up if nothing else.

My biggest fear is Hillary / Romney ballot. That would, imo, once again, be choosing which bullet I want to be shot with.

It is always a choice between head or gut.
I didn't like Bush but what choice did you have ?

It looks like your choice will be Wicked witch of the west wing or McLiar.

Posted by: mrplease

Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: mrplease

i too have never participated in a campaign or donated money to a canidate until now. as of now i am the vice president of my precinct and am hoping to be elected a delegate tomorrow...

this is the first time for my wife as well. i think she might be even more passionate for the cause than me...

RON PAUL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

While I can't recall the exact case at the moment, the Supreme Court has recognized that driving is a privillage, not a right. So legally, you are wrong. While you can argue weather something should or should not be a privillage or right, there needs to be a constitutional basis for the government to recognize that right. The closest you could come, in that manner, to claiming that driving is a right is go with the right to travel (in the pursuit of happiness). The problem with that argument is that you are guarenteed that right but not the means to that right (in this case driving). The means to exercise a right are not part of the guarentee of that right. If they were, then I should be guarenteed as much money as I feel neccessary to pursue happiness.

Lesser courts have ruled that you have a right to travel on the road in an automobile, but not a right to drive, or "operate a motor vehicle" on those roads.

You can't just claim something is a right. You need a legal constitutional basis for it. Operating a motor vehicle is considered a legal priviliage. Period. There really is no debating that one.

Also, just because the government builts and maintains something with taxpayer dollars doesn't mean you have a right to it or to use it. there is more to it then that. Military bases and all the weapons on them are property of the government, built and purchased with taxpayer dollars. You can't just walk on to a military base and grab any government weapon you like and use it, you don't have that right.

Again, there has to be a legal constitutional basis for a right, otherwise, it doesn't exist.

Posted by: ford nut

Thread is getting a little of topic ?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

You can't just claim something is a right. You need a legal constitutional basis for it. Operating a motor vehicle is considered a legal priviliage. Period. There really is no debating that one.

Also, just because the government builts and maintains something with taxpayer dollars doesn't mean you have a right to it or to use it. there is more to it then that. Military bases and all the weapons on them are property of the government, built and purchased with taxpayer dollars. You can't just walk on to a military base and grab any government weapon you like and use it, you don't have that right.

Again, there has to be a legal constitutional basis for a right, otherwise, it doesn't exist.

Really? So now you're an advocate that the government has the power to grant us our rights? I've got news for you, I don't need government to tell me that I have the right, for example, to protect myself with a firearm. I was born with that right, given to me by God.

As far as a Supreme Court decision stating that driving is not a right, LINK or SLINK my friend.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

No, quite the opposite actually. Our rights are based on the idea of Natural Law (they come from God), as opposed to positivism (rights come from the state). Nepalitano has a good explanation of the two in his book "Constitutional Chaos". That is why our Bill of Rights is a restriction of the Federal government, not a granting of rights. As such, government cannot grant rights, only recognize them, and can only take them away with due process.

The rights government recognizes are spelled out in the Constitution. A broad right to privacy, and a right to operate motor vehicles on government roads aren't in the constitution. There is a set procedure to amend the constitution to recognize those rights. We are a nation of laws; if someone can just claim whatever "rights" they want, that gets flushed down the drain.

People can't just assume rights because they think they should have them. There is a specific reason why each right was recognized in the constitution and why certian other "rights" were not. The Framers had a very specific understanding of what peoples rights were and were not. To say you have a "right to drive on public roads" (basically, that you have a right where none exists) is to A: diminish what rights are and aren't, B: assume your own definition of "rights" above that of the Framers, and C: throw out the constitution.

Basically, this is you standard argument against judicial activism.