# hey Canada !!!!!!!!!!



## frodo

I understand our "dreamers"  are crossing over into your border in unpresidented numbers,  

Merry Christmass     YA"LL !!!!!!!!!

and dont try that re gifting nonsense..no no no..they belong to you now:rofl::rofl::rofl:

hope you have a lot of yards to mow.  lol lol lol
north wall  2020!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chris

Are they really going? I keep hearing everyone say they are gonna go but I thought Canada would build a wall or something?


----------



## frodo

Chris said:


> Are they really going? I keep hearing everyone say they are gonna go but I thought Canada would build a wall or something?



I do not know if it is fake news or not,  they say the dreamers are headd to canada, because they are afraid of Trump

north wall 2020 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## nealtw

There is always some that come for jobs the legal way but I would think the passport or lack of one would be problem.


----------



## oldognewtrick

nealtw said:


> There is always some that come for jobs the legal way but I would think the passport or lack of one would be problem.



What, you have immigration laws? Does your govt enforce them?


----------



## nealtw

Yeah, we are a lot like other Great Countries.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGlish/immigrate/index.asp


----------



## Chris

Do you guys take in refugees?


----------



## nealtw

Yes we do, like all the other Great Counties that agreed to it at the UN

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...305000-newcomers-this-year-mccallum-says.html


----------



## Chris

Have they caused any problem there like they have in EU?


----------



## nealtw

I think they caught one spitting on the sidewalk.


----------



## havasu

Not according to Mainstream citizens...

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/...es-believe-mainstream-islam-promotes-violence

https://www.facebook.com/BanIslamInCanada/

http://theconversation.com/quebec-mosque-attack-forces-canada-to-confront-some-ugly-problems-72129

http://www.allenbwest.com/analytica...canadian-high-school-this-happens-immediately

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2...refugees-choking-assaulting-daniel-greenfield

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/land-of-intolerance/

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/10/04/good-news-anti-muslim-backlash-is-growing-in-canada/

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnk8Y0Z6o0A[/ame]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...people-act-as-if-im-the-spokesperson-for-isis

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/canada-open-federal-anti-radicalisation-office-2044142061

http://whitegenocideproject.com/canada-islam-a-threat-to-white-people/


----------



## frodo

havasu said:


> Not according to Mainstream citizens...
> 
> https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/...es-believe-mainstream-islam-promotes-violence
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/BanIslamInCanada/
> 
> http://theconversation.com/quebec-mosque-attack-forces-canada-to-confront-some-ugly-problems-72129
> 
> http://www.allenbwest.com/analytica...canadian-high-school-this-happens-immediately
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2...refugees-choking-assaulting-daniel-greenfield
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/politics/land-of-intolerance/
> 
> http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/10/04/good-news-anti-muslim-backlash-is-growing-in-canada/
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnk8Y0Z6o0A
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...people-act-as-if-im-the-spokesperson-for-isis
> 
> http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/canada-open-federal-anti-radicalisation-office-2044142061
> 
> http://whitegenocideproject.com/canada-islam-a-threat-to-white-people/



..................


----------



## nealtw

Yeah we do have some stupid people that believe that BS here too. And some take it so seriously they attack Mosques.
So yes that fake news is very dangerous. But we too have freedom of speech.

https://refugeehub.issbc.org/successstories/


----------



## havasu

Not to argue, what specific one is fake? I know I have crossed the Canadian border a few times, and I thought our Border Patrol were jerks, but Canadian BP take the cake!


----------



## nealtw

havasu said:


> Not to argue, what specific one is fake? I know I have crossed the Canadian border a few times, and I thought our Border Patrol were jerks, but Canadian BP take the cake!



News is what you make of it. You have to choose what you read. It is the glass half full. I am sure that both our countries and many others have the very best interrogators, figuring out who can be trusted and I am sure they share the info they get. And yes there will always be some that get thru that shouldn't.

But as a country there is a problem if everyone dwells on the worst fears or stories. If as a child, you were dragged off to India with out ever being asked what you thought about that. Then you grew up , never seeing the smile on Indian faces like you see when the same people look at Indian kids picked on in school, read things in the news how bad those alien white kids are, you might grow up with some misgivings in your attitude.

I am not saying it is like that in India.

But if you need to feed your fear or hate you will find the right news for you.


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> But we too have freedom of speech.
> 
> [/url]




not for long,  trudeau is going to make it illegal to speak out in public against muslims.

there goes free speech

http://www.dailywire.com/news/12957/war-against-free-speech-canada-close-passing-michael-qazvini

War Against Free Speech: Canada Close To Passing &#8216;Islamophobia&#8217; Law, Aka Islamic Blasphemy Law
Photo by NurPhoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images [Photo by NurPhoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images]


Last month, the Canadian parliament passed a motion that condemned Islamophobia. The motion was spearheaded by Liberal party member Iqra Khalid, who tabled the more draconian Motion M-103, which in effect treats Islamophobia as a hate crime, at the time.

Inherently Orwellian, M-103 deliberately fails to define the offense of &#8220;Islamophobia,&#8221; leaving open the possibility of any and all &#8220;insults&#8221; or offenses against both the religion of Islam and Muslims as a people.
Video'Draconian' EU security laws target Muslims, says Amnesty International

To say that Motion M-103 is anti-free speech would be an understatement. Canada has already toyed with legislation that criminalizes &#8220;mis-gendering,&#8221; or identifying an individual by a gender that doesn&#8217;t fit their &#8220;preferred&#8221; pronoun. According to University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson, &#8220;Canada&#8217;s Federal Bill C-16&#8230; adds legal protection for &#8220;gender identity&#8221; and &#8220;gender expression&#8221; to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal code.&#8221;

But the desire for a measure like M-103 lurks, ready to strike again. Liberal Canadian MPs are hoping to use similar legislative powers to criminalize &#8220;Islamophobia.&#8221; The irony here is, of course, that most Muslim-majority countries would scoff at the term &#8220;transphobia,&#8221; citing Sharia law (perhaps erroneously) and other Islamic edicts to persecute gender non-conforming individuals.

Despite the fact that Canadian liberals have yet to draw unanimous consent for their draconian measures, encountering opposition from minority Conservative MPs, Khalid and his colleagues appear hell-bent on making sure Canadian law sees &#8220;Islamophobia&#8221; as a serious offense.

Last month, &#8220;Liberal MP Khalid introduced another more comprehensive motion that &#8220;the government should recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear&#8230; condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons&#8217; petition e-411 and the issues raised by it&#8230;and request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study,&#8221; reports The Daily Caller.

With far-left multiculturalism-minded Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the helm, it&#8217;s only a matter of time before the Canadian government institutionalizes de facto Islamic blasphemy laws.
Tags
Canada Free Speech Islam Justin Trudeau Muslims Radical Islam Radical Islamic Terror


----------



## nealtw

We do have our own Trump type running for PM
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...onight-at-conservative-debate-in-halifax.html


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> not for long,  trudeau is going to make it illegal to speak out in public against muslims.
> 
> there goes free speech



Don't confuse hate speech and free speech.


----------



## frodo

they illegal aliens from here are going to require you to pay them a minimum of $15.00  pr hr USD
and will need welfare, food stamps.housing, utilities, paid, with all social services also.   you guys need to jump on that vry quickly.


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> Don't confuse hate speech and free speech.



free speech is free speech  it encompasses hate speech

funny thing about freedom of speech,  what is hate to you is not hate to others
so TRUE free speech does not curtail someone elses right to speak there mind.
TRUE  free speech is speech that you do not like.


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> free speech is free speech  it encompasses hate speech
> 
> funny thing about freedom of speech,  what is hate to you is not hate to others
> so TRUE free speech does not curtail someone elses right to speak there mind.
> TRUE  free speech is speech that you do not like.



That's nice but we do have laws
*Yours,*
Sorry, kids, the 1st Amendment does protect 'hate speech' The Supreme Court has not recognized a "hate speech" exception to the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has not recognized a "hate speech" exception to the 1st Amendment.
*Ours*
The Criminal Code of Canada. Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda. "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

So when you come to Canada be careful of what you say:rofl:


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> That's nice but we do have laws
> *Yours,*
> Sorry, kids, the 1st Amendment does protect 'hate speech' The Supreme Court has not recognized a "hate speech" exception to the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has not recognized a "hate speech" exception to the 1st Amendment.
> *Ours*
> The Criminal Code of Canada. Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda. "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."
> 
> So when you come to Canada be careful of what you say:rofl:



so there you go,  You do not have free speech.

And,  NO, we do not have hate speech laws,  We have FREE SPEECH

I can stand in the middle of the street [[as long as i am not blocking traffic]]

And yell ANYTHING  I wish to yell.

AS LONG As i am not putting persons in danger,,SUCH as yelling fire, in a movie Threater
BUT I can,   say  I hate......., I can call you any name i wish to call you
say anything about you I wish to say
THAT is my right to do so.
I might get punched in the nose  or sued for slander,but i will not be jailed or fined for speaking my mind,   even if you dont like it


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> so there you go,  You do not have free speech.
> 
> And,  NO, we do not have hate speech laws,  We have FREE SPEECH



Pay attention, we were discussing Canada.

You have to decide whether something is hate speech or not.

I just have to see if it originated in Canada or not.:thbup:


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> Pay attention, we were discussing Canada.
> 
> You have to decide whether something is hate speech or not.
> 
> I just have to see if it originated in Canada or not.:thbup:



no Neal.  If you have free speech,.
you are free to say..I think all ______should be rounded up and burned alive.


that is free speech..what is not free speech,  is being told you can not say those things and fined or jailed if you do.  that is fascist anti-free speech


----------



## nealtw

So now I am tired of trying to talk to a fool who only want to argue with anything that is said.


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> So now I am tired of trying to talk to a fool who only want to argue with anything that is said.




Always the personal insults,  In every discussion, when every you run out of things to say.

The discussion was freedom of speech in canada, 
You do not seem to understand what free speech is, 

So I am paste and copy  the definition for you to read


freedom of speech
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Idioms, Wikipedia.
Related to freedom of speech: First Amendment, Bill of Rights, Freedom of press
freedom of speech
n.
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government, protected in the United States as a right under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Also called free speech.

the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc. Also called free speech. 
.......

As you can see the definition of freedom of speech is ..and I quote

"in public without censorship or restraint by the government,''

This says that your Canadian hate laws , STOPs you from having FreeSpeech In canada

Get mad, stomp your feet, call me a fool all you want, The fact remains that Canada does

 NOT enjoy Freedom of Speech. 

It Is only going to get worse in Canada, Trudeau Is going to pass more "HATE" speech laws

And the Canadians are like a Frog on a hot plate,  You feel all warm and fuzzy, While you are being cooked little by little


----------



## nealtw

In Canada the people are the government, therefore the people don't want to allow hate speech.


----------



## Chris

So if I say people of Islam that follow Mohammed should not be allowed in our country because they only bring crime. Is that considered hate speech?


----------



## nealtw

I have never heard anyone being charged. But I think if you want to talk crap about people, you should keep close to something that can be proved correct.

The simple fix to your statement would be to say you are afraid that, and then your statement.

But that says more about you than them.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...rrest-man-for-alleged-social-media-posts.html


----------



## Chris

Ok let's try this.

I have a fear that if the US opens its borders to these refugees that they will bring the same crimes and trouble they have brought to the EU.


----------



## Chris

From a more personal experience, I have a lot of family still in Sweden. They tell me about what has happened locally to them. They have brought in enough refugees to make up 2% of their population, these 2% make up 77% of the countries crime rate. My cousins are now afraid to walk outside at night because of the rape problem. The police there have stopped putting up the pictures of those wanted by police in fear of being called racist because most all are the Muslim immigrants. 

This brings it closer to home for me because it comes from family yet if I am against wanting that crime here I am somehow a racist or hater of these people.


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> Ok let's try this.
> 
> I have a fear that if the US opens its borders to these refugees that they will bring the same crimes and trouble they have brought to the EU.



Yeah, that's different than saying they have or they will.

Remember, it goes both ways, we do want those groups to report something they hear in their own language.


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> But that says more about you than them.
> l[/url]



bunch of closed minded judgmental sum bitch's arn't they


btw,,,,you called me a fool,  that is hate speech,  report to the jail and turn yourself in,,,,


----------



## oldognewtrick

Something to think about, IF we would bring in every single refugee from every nation on earth, it would not solve one single problem. The problem is why is there refugees? What can be done to solve that problem?


----------



## nealtw

oldognewtrick said:


> Something to think about, IF we would bring in every single refugee from every nation on earth, it would not solve one single problem. The problem is why is there refugees? What can be done to solve that problem?



That would require understanding, good luck with that.:rofl::rofl:


----------



## frodo

20,000 --30,000 isis members,  how many thousands of refugees ? 

over 1/2 million male syrian refugees,  

why arnt the male syrians fighting isis ?   i do not think there are refugees at all they are invaders


http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/heres-one-fact-dismantles-syrian-refugee-myth/


----------



## havasu

Neal, please take a look at this 10 minute documentary filmed in Sweden. It seems Canada will be dealing with this shortly. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqaIgeQXQgI[/ame]


----------



## nealtw

havasu said:


> Neal, please take a look at this 10 minute documentary filmed in Sweden. It seems Canada will be dealing with this shortly.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqaIgeQXQgI



I got to the first BS line at 150, I have heard that one all my life listening to fools that spew trash.
You know it is not true, I know it is not true.

If there is some truth to the story they are telling they should not salt it with that crap.

REAL NEWS, are the people who check the fact before they publish and check each other after it is published.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/11/are-migrants-really-raping-swedish-women.html


Any time you want to talk about something that could cause the downfall of democracy.
Other wise I will just put you on my stupid list.


----------



## havasu

Come on Neal, surely you could find a better news source other than severely slanted liberal news source?

_
Michelle t.
1 review
0 helpful votes
&#8220;Horribly biased.. beyond what should be tolerated&#8221;
12/31/16
I have no problem with political leaning either way in any articles across the media "sphere". But to say that this "News Organization" is just a little left leaning would be dishonest! Almost like the daily beast! Again i dont really lean one way or the other in most issues, but i am particularly disturbed at how much the truth is bent and skewed to fit these peoples narratives! They "cleverly" hide their disdain for anything (anyone) that dont fit their "world view" inside asinine articles made to persuade you to believe every half truth and obtuse opinions they spew... trash website... trash writing... they need to get a grip_

_Vindictive&#8221;
1/28/17
If you refuse to be interviewed, they make up nasty stuff. Very vindictive. Very personal. Just a personal blog and not a vetted news site or revered opinion site. Sad. There is nothing of value to be gleaned from this site_

_&#8220;Obvious disinformation&#8221;
12/11/16
They leave out KEY facts to sway opinion, and use misinterpretations of truthful statements. I read 2 articles, and recognized 3 blatant omissions._

_&#8220;The Kratom articles are pure pharma propaganda&#8221;
9/29/16
Don't believe anything they print. I have never read such blatantly planted disinformation in my life. Even more laughable is the advertising for an addiction recovery center (a worse racket than the war on drugs) featured on the same page- one of the industries that is threatened by the opiate curing benefits of kratom leaves. The Daily Beast is not news, They are paid off by advertisers to mislead you._


----------



## havasu

My final input here...


----------



## Chris

Neal do you believe that the Muslim refugees are causing the majority of crime and rape in Sweden?


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> Neal do you believe that the Muslim refugees are causing the majority of crime and rape in Sweden?



How do you judge the news you here?


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> How do you judge the news you here?



deflection


----------



## Chris

My news on Sweden come from my cousins that live there and see it first hand. Unless they are making it up but not sure why they would want to make their country appear worse than it is?


----------



## Chris

They live just outside Stockholm


----------



## Chris

nealtw said:


> How do you judge the news you here?



I was asking your personal opinion.


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> My news on Sweden come from my cousins that live there and see it first hand. Unless they are making it up but not sure why they would want to make their country appear worse than it is?



You repeat things that make your country sound worse than it is.


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> I was asking your personal opinion.



I don't have one.

If I was interested I would read a few articles and look for the statements like in the article above that have nonsense lines and disregard those.

When I went to school we were taught just how fragile a democracy can be.

We were taught what to watch out for like communism and how they could take over. But communism isn't the only thing to watch out for.
It doesn't matter if the country is going to far right or to far right, the tricks used to destroy the country is the same.

You certainly have to be  careful of going to far toward the welfare state but you have to be careful of people that could take you to far the other way.

A democracy of almost any description that works has five things that are important.  The head of state, the opposition, the independent court, free press,and the vote.

I will bet that you don't believe in at least three of those five.
And that says you are part way down the garden path.


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> deflection



Yeah someone took your thread away from Canada.:trophy:


----------



## frodo

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.


----------



## frodo

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individuals rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britains parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majoritys power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individuals unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jeffersons.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

    "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the peoples liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jeffersons above-quoted comments).

The Framing Conventions records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the peoples liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracys form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

    "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come its turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

    "Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madisons observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

    "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the peoples forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.


----------



## frodo

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual&#8217;s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America&#8217;s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America&#8217;s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams&#8217; "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

    "By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people&#8217;s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual&#8217;s rights--to endanger the people&#8217;s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

    "As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.


----------



## Chris

I believe in all five of those things.

Question for you?

How do you know what is nonsense or what is false in the news? I can't find a single news outlet that does not sway a story in way or the other. The one you linked earlier is just as corrupt as any other. How do you tell what is right and what is wrong? 

I can only base what is real in the news from the videos I see as at least those show what is happening and we are not basing things off people's opinion. Yes they can manipulate video by cutting stuff out but it is hard to manipulate a riot unless you think those are staged.

And yes you do have an opinion otherwise you wouldn't be fighting so hard to say that anyone who leans right is somehow uninformed or an idiot


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> I believe in all five of those things.
> 
> Question for you?
> 
> How do you know what is nonsense or what is false in the news? I can't find a single news outlet that does not sway a story in way or the other. The one you linked earlier is just as corrupt as any other. How do you tell what is right and what is wrong?
> 
> I can only base what is real in the news from the videos I see as at least those show what is happening and we are not basing things off people's opinion. Yes they can manipulate video by cutting stuff out but it is hard to manipulate a riot unless you think those are staged.
> 
> And yes you do have an opinion otherwise you wouldn't be fighting so hard to say that anyone who leans right is somehow uninformed or an idiot



A neighborhood so dangerous even the police won't go there.
That is a pretty good hint right there. I have heard that all my life.

I answered a question with my opinion about Canada, WTF do you guys think it is helpful to convince me of something.

Your side won the election, what is your problem, I think the verdict is still out on what he will do. 

There are some all over the world that are happy, and some that are afraid.

If you think that is good, good for you but the rest of us will wait and see.


----------



## buffalo

I think the fact of the matter is , we should not care about what people of the world think , wether happy or afraid . This is about America ,  no one else.


----------



## nealtw

buffalo said:


> I think the fact of the matter is , we should not care about what people of the world think , wether happy or afraid . This is about America ,  no one else.



We all do that when we vote. but how the world sees you for trade and leadership or who your friends or foes are can make a big difference to you.

For the real stupid reference, if the world started treating you like North Korea?

You gain a lot from being that shiny city on the hill.

That's what I think anyway.


----------



## Chris

I only argue this refugee thing because Every person I know that leans left keeps saying they are good people just like you and me. They avoid like the plague even mentioning that they could be bad people and will not even acknowledge that their culture is none that mixes well with ours. I just don't see why we would want to invite even the possibility of adding more crime to our country. 

My next question is why are all these people fleeing their country instead of staying and fixing it? Millions of people running from what? That is enough people to stay and fight for their own instead of ours.


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> I only argue this refugee thing because Every person I know that leans left keeps saying they are good people just like you and me. They avoid like the plague even mentioning that they could be bad people and will not even acknowledge that their culture is none that mixes well with ours. I just don't see why we would want to invite even the possibility of adding more crime to our country.
> 
> My next question is why are all these people fleeing their country instead of staying and fixing it? Millions of people running from what? That is enough people to stay and fight for their own instead of ours.



[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkuW1FcoWsI[/ame]


----------



## Chris

nealtw said:


> A neighborhood so dangerous even the police won't go there.
> That is a pretty good hint right there. I have heard that all my life.
> 
> I agree that is a pretty dumb statement but that doesn't make the entire article false.
> 
> I answered a question with my opinion about Canada, WTF do you guys think it is helpful to convince me of something.
> 
> Not trying to convince you of anything, just trying to get you to see that there are problems out there that you seem to be blind to.
> 
> *Your side won the election, what is your problem*, I think the verdict is still out on what he will do.
> 
> Yes the republicans won but my problem is that ever since all I have seen from the left is HATE and VIOLENCE. Movie stars, singers, Government workers and anyone on TV or Radio have said things that any normal person would not even imagine saying. Everything you can possibly think of that is not just negative but just Hateful. More public Assassination threats than on any other president, calling all Conservatives Nazi's and racist and the list goes on. All these immature waste of human flesh that run around beating innocent people up just because they have a red trump hat or are public about being a conservative, these are the people representing your side. I have always thought I was more in the middle and leaning right but lately with the actions of the left it pushes me more right. The left commit these crimes and violence all while justifying it by saying the right are Nazi's. Then you have the media hidng every bit of this they can as to not look bad themselves. The left has gone above and beyond to separate us, Obama tried to seperate Black and white and the left in general are trying to separate the left and right.
> 
> There are some all over the world that are happy, and some that are afraid.
> 
> If you think that is good, good for you but the rest of us will wait and see.
> 
> Trump may not be everyone's first choice or the best man for the job but he is one thing that most of America is grateful for right now, he is not scared or a puppet for anyone. He is doing his best to put Americans first and protect what we have. America has been taken advantage of for a long time and it shows here at home. None of us know how the world will respond to these sudden changes but America is willing to take the chance for change, that is why he was voted in. America wasn't built to be another Canada or Denmark, we are Americans!




.....................


----------



## Chris

nealtw said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkuW1FcoWsI



Looks like they have a lot of work ahead of them to make their country great again! Better get on it.


----------



## Chris

Doesn't happen in Canada. They are just like you and me.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3235690/m...at-west-edmonton-mall-waterpark/?sf55062280=1


----------



## frodo

the numbers I am seeing,  and I could be off,   isis members number around 20 thousand,,,so lets bump that to 30 thousand
because people lie
there are other factions involved,  but I do not know there names.to be fair.    lets give them a membership number that matches isis

so,  we have 60,000  ''bad guys'' now..a very generous number
reports are the displacement of Syrians is around 25 million.
I am going to subtract 2/3 of that number  for woman, children, old folk
and round off the 8.3 million to 8 million

8 million males, fleeing  from 60 thousand ''bad guys''

I do not care who you are, these numbers do not add up to refugees  being persecuted 
it does add up to an invasion of muslims into christian lands

another thought,  roll this around in your head,   if the situation was reversed,  would muslims accept Christians
into there land with open arms,  ready to help and support.
the answer is no,


----------



## Chris

Are these all Fake news? I think some are purposely ignoring the problem?

http://www.therebel.media/exclusive_syrian_refugee_school_sex_attack

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/...es-believe-mainstream-islam-promotes-violence

http://tsecnetwork.ca/2016/04/06/syrian-refugees-and-rape/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/28/r...n-canadian-high-school-harassing-young-girls/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2...refugees-choking-assaulting-daniel-greenfield

http://headspacepress.com/concerned-about-syrian-refugees-entering-canada-you-should-read-this/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/05/c...violent-syrian-migrants-documents-show-video/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...sprayed-syrian-refugees-doesnt-reflect-canada

http://newobserveronline.com/canada-refugee-violence-schools/


----------



## frodo

Chris said:


> Are these all Fake news? I think some are purposely ignoring the problem?
> 
> http://www.therebel.media/exclusive_syrian_refugee_school_sex_attack
> 
> https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/...es-believe-mainstream-islam-promotes-violence
> 
> http://tsecnetwork.ca/2016/04/06/syrian-refugees-and-rape/
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/28/r...n-canadian-high-school-harassing-young-girls/
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2...refugees-choking-assaulting-daniel-greenfield
> 
> http://headspacepress.com/concerned-about-syrian-refugees-entering-canada-you-should-read-this/
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/05/c...violent-syrian-migrants-documents-show-video/
> 
> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...sprayed-syrian-refugees-doesnt-reflect-canada
> 
> http://newobserveronline.com/canada-refugee-violence-schools/





you can not talk to the left with intelligence Chris,  They are entrenched in the belief that all is fine,  the refugees are all 167% vetted,   they [refuges]  love every one. and everything is unicorns and tulips.
They ignore any and all news from any source saying it is either fake or biased.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/...ssaults-14-year-old-girl-at-high-school-dance

never mind that homeland security and the fbi have both said
they are concerned that the refugees can NOT be 100% vetted
because,   the country is war torn and they have no way to request court papers or records.


----------



## nealtw

http://politics.flackcheck.org/how-to-spot-fake-news-factcheck/?gclid=CIqzsPemgtICFQ-ZfgodLeEFNA


----------



## frodo

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rC-qX6Q5m8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rC-qX6Q5m8[/ame]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Z2HB3IqFw"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Z2HB3IqFw[/ame]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si3jW-al6cA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si3jW-al6cA[/ame]

you consider this fake ?     I do not


----------



## nealtw

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ7_bo74VMA[/ame]


----------



## Chris

nealtw said:


> http://politics.flackcheck.org/how-to-spot-fake-news-factcheck/?gclid=CIqzsPemgtICFQ-ZfgodLeEFNA



So you are saying that all those news links I posted are Satire? They are all fake? You don't believe any of these things happened in Canada?


----------



## Chris

These are from your "REAL NEWS" site. Do you believe them?

http://newobserveronline.com/canada-refugee-violence-schools/

Take a loot at this from your real news site, Syrians are running from the crime and rape in Syria from Syrians. I take it all the rapist and people committing crime will stay behind?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/08/women-fleeing-syrian-rape-hell.html


Distribution: 
Website
Website: 
www.thedailybeast.com
Bias: left biaspolitical
The Daily Beast publishes information from a left biased position with an advocacy for liberal causes. The editorial content and headlines are often loaded with strong words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes. They may publish misleading reports, cite unverified sources, reference bogus reports and *omit information that may damage their cause*. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion and/or propaganda. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-source/daily-beast


*Ownership
The Daily Beast is owned by IAC, where the vice chairman of the Clinton Foundation, Chelsea Clinton, serves on the board of directors.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Beast



I am surprised Neal, you say this site is fair, fact check and real news yet it leans farther left than most. Not reporting news you don't like is just as bad or worse than fake news.


----------



## havasu

Look!   Over there ---------->         Donald said the word pu**y!


----------



## frodo

my feelings are hurt


----------



## slownsteady

I am not going to read any of the links posted here from EITHER SIDE. It only illustrates the biggest problem that the USA has right now: that no news source is a reliable neutral *and even those that may be, are accused by the other side of being biased* It is not only sad, but very destructive to the state of the union.


----------



## Chris

slownsteady said:


> I am not going to read any of the links posted here from EITHER SIDE. It only illustrates the biggest problem that the USA has right now: that no news source is a reliable neutral *and even those that may be, are accused by the other side of being biased* It is not only sad, but very destructive to the state of the union.



I agree, the news should report the news and that's it. It shouldn't lean one way or the other or leave anything out. We are all adults and can handle the truth so why not just give it to us? Then you have the fake news, what's the point of even having that? It does no good for anyone.


----------



## Chris

Just saw on my local news that we have the highest number of illegal immigrants living here in California compared to any place in the US. We have 2.4 million illegal immigrants. But when you compare it to the 38 million that live in this state I guess its not a bad number? Thats only about 6.3% of us are illegal here in Cal.  Which is about 25% of the nations Documented illegal immigrants (the ones they can actually count).  I bet Havasu is one........


----------



## bud16415

The news is first what happened and second the news is the reaction to what happened, and then the reaction to the reaction and so on it goes. 

Trump puts 90 stop to travel from some countries. That&#8217;s the news.

People in those countries opinion on how this stoppage is affecting their lives. That&#8217;s commentary and not news.

Protest break out in the USA because of this stoppage. That&#8217;s more news.

Let&#8217;s ask  the protestors and those in government what they think about it. That&#8217;s commentary and not news. 

Anger erupts because of some commentary someone doesn&#8217;t like. That&#8217;s news

And the cycle goes on.


----------



## Chris

That's why I like my local news people, I have no idea what side they lean and that's the way I like it.


----------



## havasu

We need a group hug.


----------



## Chris

You bring the strippers


----------



## bud16415

Chris said:


> That's why I like my local news people, I have no idea what side they lean and that's the way I like it.



They are on for one hour a day. The 24/7 news channels have the same 15 minutes per day of hard facts to report and they fill the rest of the time talking about the news. No one watches middle of the road 24/7 news so they slant it to align with their viewers. Liberals can&#8217;t stand watching more than 10 minutes of fox news and conservatives can&#8217;t stand 10 minutes of CNN. 

In a way both are broadcasting the truth it is just the vantage point of the viewer that makes it truth to them. There is no true truth that everyone accepts. 

Here is a truth I hate the idea of torturing someone for information I think it is so wrong on every level of what civil cultures should do. Someone takes my wife or kid with the intent of harming them and I have someone who knows where they are and won&#8217;t talk.  I&#8217;m taking a 16oz framing hammer and going finger by finger till they do talk. What is truth there my truth is directed by my vantage point. 

All life is like that to different degrees.


----------



## frodo

bud16415 said:


> In a way both are broadcasting the truth it is just the vantage point of the viewer that makes it truth to them. There is no true truth that everyone accepts.
> 
> .




the networks  should be reporting only the truth, but they either lean the truth or ignore it all together
I saw a chart on coverage of hrc emails
 do not remember the exact numbers but fox spent 15 minutes per hour reporting on it
cnn  spent 3 minutes a WEEK
i use fox and the BBC for my news,  I find that BBC actually  has better coverage of the US than we have


----------



## bud16415

frodo said:


> the networks  should be reporting only the truth, but they either lean the truth or ignore it all together
> I saw a chart on coverage of hrc emails
> do not remember the exact numbers but fox spent 15 minutes per hour reporting on it
> cnn  spent 3 minutes a WEEK
> i use fox and the BBC for my news,  I find that BBC actually  has better coverage of the US than we have



 If CNN would have spent 15 minutes per hour on that subject there is a very good chance HRC would have won.


----------



## frodo

bud16415 said:


> If CNN would have spent 15 minutes per hour on that subject there is a very good chance HRC would have won.




shudder at the thought


----------



## bud16415

frodo said:


> shudder at the thought



Elections are won or lost not by the voters but by the number of people that stay home and sit on the couch. Trump got more people off the couch than HRC did. The people that vote year in and year out are about equal.


----------



## frodo

bud16415 said:


> Elections are won or lost not by the voters but by the number of people that stay home and sit on the couch. Trump got more people off the couch than HRC did. The people that vote year in and year out are about equal.



that is the trurth and a big problem,,Trump got them fired up, mad
but we still had 40% of eligible voter   couch potatoes that watched tv


----------



## slownsteady

bud16415 said:


> Elections are won or lost not by the voters but by the number of people that stay home and sit on the couch. Trump got more people off the couch than HRC did. The people that vote year in and year out are about equal.


Popular vote count would argue against the truth of this statement........
This whole "alternate facts" crap has to be resolved.


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> Popular vote count would argue against the truth of this statement........
> This whole "alternate facts" crap has to be resolved.




Popular vote does win in each state. Popular vote means nothing as the total vote. As we are under a system of representative government it wasnt intended to be equal. Every state gets two senators to do their bidding. That is not fair some would say as smaller states get as much say as larger states. We have this idea that we are one big country and what is good for NJ is good for NY is good for CA. the federal government is supposed to have the least influence in our life and local the most. It is now backwards. 

There are all kinds of alternate facts, just as I mentioned above there are all kinds of truths. The facts are dependent on the beliefs of the person stating them. A great example given as fact by the last one was, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor , if you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan. Im not making this up it is a fact. I heard that fact a thousand times. It was an alternate fact.


----------



## nealtw

slownsteady said:


> Popular vote count would argue against the truth of this statement........
> This whole "alternate facts" crap has to be resolved.



Most of the British Commonwealth countries like Canada, DO NOT use the popular vote. Where  you have electoral districts we have riding. The party that wins the most ridings form the government. If you went by pop. vote flyover country really would be flyover country and only the biggest cities would count.

Trump him self said he would have campaigned different for a pop vote, in other words he would have gone more for the big city votes.

The country can and must beat fake news. You have to watch what is being said live, so you know what was said. 
Watch out for the guy saying one thing to the lame stream and something else to Facebook. It doesn't matter what he says, other than he is not being honest.
We laugh at these videos like when they change the words said by candidates in a debate but the technology is coming where that is getting better, so we won't know what is real or not.

If anyone thinks CNN did not cover Emails, they don't watch CNN. Taking about lost airplanes was a nice break.
https://arstechnica.com/information...dobe-voco-photoshop-for-audio-speech-editing/


----------



## slownsteady

I was not arguing the fact that DJT won the electoral college. He did, and he is the President.
You said; "Trump got more people off the couch than HRC did." And I said; "Popular vote count would argue against the truth of this statement........". This implies that more people voted or DJT than HRC, which, by all accounts, is not true. Yet you stated it as a fact, so I used it to illustrate my point. 
You can reply if you want, but I won't carry the point any further.


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> I was not arguing the fact that DJT won the electoral college. He did, and he is the President.
> You said; "Trump got more people off the couch than HRC did." And I said; "Popular vote count would argue against the truth of this statement........". This implies that more people voted or DJT than HRC, which, by all accounts, is not true. Yet you stated it as a fact, so I used it to illustrate my point.
> You can reply if you want, but I won't carry the point any further.



Agreed, what I should have said is more people got off the couch in swing states where there was some chance of winning the state. No one got off the couch in CA because Trump could have spent 100 million and maybe got a few million more votes he would have never won the state. What he did was apply his money in the area where he could get the greatest return on investment. Common business practice. 

In my state PA I was kind amazed that there were 100 DJT yard signs for ever 1 HRC signs. I have a good friend at work that is a good Dem and I asked if he had a HRC sign in his yard. He said no but he had one on order and he was upset because he had to order it and pay 5 bucks for it and they were giving out DJT signs by the arm full to people. I saw yards with 10 in them. He asked why and got the same logic as why DJT didnt spend money in CA. HRC figured they had a lock on PA and put the money in other directions. I told him to get a 4x8 sheet of plywood and make his own, as I am always more impressed with a DIY sign than someone sticking one in the ground. He said Im not going to do that. After the election he missed 2 days of work because as he told me I just couldnt handle leaving the house. I kept my mouth shut and said good to see you back, but remembered quite a few days coming to work when I would have rather stayed home. 

It is a bit saddening that all these shenanigans determine an election, not much different than the high school election I remember where the kid that won gave everyone a candy bar. 

This election points out the tipping point theory and how we are right at the tipping point now. It is a tribute to the founders that they figured out a system of two houses and the way they were elected and what powers each have along with the executive branch that has been able to stay in check for all this time. We may not like the system but it has worked pretty well, and to think it was put into place in a far different time. What foresight.

The only other thing equally amazing is the dimension of a baseball diamond and how it has stood the test of time.


----------



## Mastercarpenty

What is more amazing to me is that most of the people who created our system were what we'd consider under-educated today. Farmers, merchants, traders, and tradesmen with a few more highly educated ones tossed into the mix. That such a motley crew could see so deeply and thoroughly makes it clear that higher education isn't as good as having the ability to think in the first place. What truly made their concept different was by designing in a method for changing the government through amending the Constitution- that was a new idea totally unlike anything prior to it. They intentionally made amending it hard to do in order to force the people to think hard about what they were asking for. I personally think it's not used often enough or well enough. 

If those folks were alive today I think they'd be kicking and spitting on the average American for letting our Country and it's Government slide as far downhill as we have. It is no longer "of the people, for the people, and by the people" but "of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich" with the people being seen by them only as a tool they can use to gain more power and more riches. It costs millions to run for a major political office now and no average American can muster that much money to get there. Conformity with one of the two parties is required of those in office; free-thinkers and radicals are shunned and intentionally kept away from the most powerful positions by those parties. And yet our founders were just that: free-thinking radicals. 

We've lost our way and I doubt that we will ever find it again. As someone who loves this land and the people in it (but NOT the government running it) this deeply saddens me. The only solace I can find is that given my age I'll be dead before it hits rock-bottom.

In studying how Canada does things, I can see that we could learn from some of that and become better by following suit with those things. Socially, Canada is light-years ahead of us- they still see the value of their people instead of seeing them only as tools- and indeed it is the people who make the Nation, not the Government. I see Canada as the most wonderful neighbor anybody could have, but I know that feeling isn't reciprocal and I understand why. It's our fault, not yours. I'd love nothing better that to change that for your sake and mine, but I'm not rich, and I'm a free-thinking radical so the best I can give you is my honest heartfelt personal friendship and respect. I hope you understand.

Phil


----------



## nealtw

Mastercarpenty said:


> What is more amazing to me is that most of the people who created our system were what we'd consider under-educated today. Farmers, merchants, traders, and tradesmen with a few more highly educated ones tossed into the mix. That such a motley crew could see so deeply and thoroughly makes it clear that higher education isn't as good as having the ability to think in the first place. What truly made their concept different was by designing in a method for changing the government through amending the Constitution- that was a new idea totally unlike anything prior to it. They intentionally made amending it hard to do in order to force the people to think hard about what they were asking for. I personally think it's not used often enough or well enough.
> 
> If those folks were alive today I think they'd be kicking and spitting on the average American for letting our Country and it's Government slide as far downhill as we have. It is no longer "of the people, for the people, and by the people" but "of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich" with the people being seen by them only as a tool they can use to gain more power and more riches. It costs millions to run for a major political office now and no average American can muster that much money to get there. Conformity with one of the two parties is required of those in office; free-thinkers and radicals are shunned and intentionally kept away from the most powerful positions by those parties. And yet our founders were just that: free-thinking radicals.
> 
> We've lost our way and I doubt that we will ever find it again. As someone who loves this land and the people in it (but NOT the government running it) this deeply saddens me. The only solace I can find is that given my age I'll be dead before it hits rock-bottom.
> 
> In studying how Canada does things, I can see that we could learn from some of that and become better by following suit with those things. Socially, Canada is light-years ahead of us- they still see the value of their people instead of seeing them only as tools- and indeed it is the people who make the Nation, not the Government. I see Canada as the most wonderful neighbor anybody could have, but I know that feeling isn't reciprocal and I understand why. It's our fault, not yours. I'd love nothing better that to change that for your sake and mine, but I'm not rich, and I'm a free-thinking radical so the best I can give you is my honest heartfelt personal friendship and respect. I hope you understand.
> 
> Phil



That's all nice but mostly BS.

For the people, white male land owners were the people.

Thirteen different groups all with different ideas and all wanted their own ideas to be the end result. But they knew they had to give and take to get it done.  They would not have got there if one group had dug their heels in and said no to everything.

Canada is a whole nother story and the set up does not have the checks and balance you do.


----------



## Mastercarpenty

nealtw said:


> That's all nice but mostly BS.
> 
> For the people, white male land owners were the people.
> 
> Thirteen different groups all with different ideas and all wanted their own ideas to be the end result. But they knew they had to give and take to get it done.  They would not have got there if one group had dug their heels in and said no to everything.
> 
> Canada is a whole nother story and the set up does not have the checks and balance you do.



Nope, not even close to being BS. Look up your references and see who attended the Constitutional Convention and why they did for a living. Look up what the cost is just to file for candidacy and get on the ballot to become a Senator- it is well beyond what the average person can accomplish. Yes, there was diversity and it was wide, but they found a way to fit everyone in even with all that. They were predominantly white males, but other than not having women involved that reflected the vast majority of who was living on the land taken from the natives (which is a while 'nuther story). 

The right to vote was restricted to landowners yes, but there was (and could still be) some merit in that and it was intentional. Only a landowner has a vested interest in an area and will benefit or suffer directly by the laws they enact. It is not a simple matter to move away once you've spent years developing your property unlike tennancy where you can simply move away from any problems you manage to create for yourself then make the same mistakes there too with impunity. It also encouraged people to make that more full commitment to theirself, their future, and their nation by being a good steward of the world around you. It kept the dregs of society from running things. It kept the uneducated from doing that too since they generally didn't own land. In many other places it required an even higher position in society to make your input heard. They definitely knew what they were doing and did it that way for very valid reasons that weren't intended to be discriminatory which even today have some validity in them. As the people saw fit to do, that was later changed by the system they knew would allow that to occur. Restricting the vote like this was the best way to start and that was it's only intention- a start.

You are free to have your own viewpoint and opinion, but when you call BS you need to back that up with facts which you haven't done. And here you should consider how such a thing reflects on the whole site. I happen to be a Moderator and Admin on a few forums myself and that is what I and the others do there so I am not being hypocritical in suggesting the same from you. Set the standards and be the example you want others to follow through your own actions. Act as if the whole world is watching you because they can these days 

Phil


----------



## nealtw

Mastercarpenty said:


> Nope, not even close to being BS. Look up your references and see who attended the Constitutional Convention and why they did for a living. Look up what the cost is just to file for candidacy and get on the ballot to become a Senator- it is well beyond what the average person can accomplish. Yes, there was diversity and it was wide, but they found a way to fit everyone in even with all that. They were predominantly white males, but other than not having women involved that reflected the vast majority of who was living on the land taken from the natives (which is a while 'nuther story).
> 
> The right to vote was restricted to landowners yes, but there was (and could still be) some merit in that and it was intentional. Only a landowner has a vested interest in an area and will benefit or suffer directly by the laws they enact. It is not a simple matter to move away once you've spent years developing your property unlike tennancy where you can simply move away from any problems you manage to create for yourself then make the same mistakes there too with impunity. It also encouraged people to make that more full commitment to theirself, their future, and their nation by being a good steward of the world around you. It kept the dregs of society from running things. It kept the uneducated from doing that too since they generally didn't own land. In many other places it required an even higher position in society to make your input heard. They definitely knew what they were doing and did it that way for very valid reasons that weren't intended to be discriminatory which even today have some validity in them. As the people saw fit to do, that was later changed by the system they knew would allow that to occur. Restricting the vote like this was the best way to start and that was it's only intention- a start.
> 
> You are free to have your own viewpoint and opinion, but when you call BS you need to back that up with facts which you haven't done. And here you should consider how such a thing reflects on the whole site. I happen to be a Moderator and Admin on a few forums myself and that is what I and the others do there so I am not being hypocritical in suggesting the same from you. Set the standards and be the example you want others to follow through your own actions. Act as if the whole world is watching you because they can these days
> 
> Phil



Let me re phrase that. I think it is BS

If you care to be a fact checker go start at the beginning of this thread.

I don't think a forum like this should have any political stuff because it is too divisive.

Some of the members that come here for help may be refuges, immigrants,
gay, poor white or black, and things that are said about them only because someone has an opinion is terrible. 

So as long as that crap is allowed I will feel free to call BS when I think I see it.


----------



## frodo

Mastercarpenty said:


> .
> 
> free-thinkers and radicals are shunned and intentionally kept away from the most powerful positions by those parties.
> 
> And yet our founders were just that: free-thinking radicals.
> 
> 
> 
> Phil



In comes Trump, A free thinking radical

 I voted for him for the simple reason of what he is doing right now.
turning the place upside down,,,IF, we as citizens are not to late.
and IF Trump is the right person for the job.

we Might be able to turn this around..

Does Trump worry the bejesus out of me ?  Yes he does,  he is a radical SOB
but in my opinion,  that is exactly what we need right now.
it is my opinion
we must get this immigration and refugee bs under control,  

the reason we have limits on immigrants/refugees each year is so we do not 
flood our society wih numbers that can not be absorbed into the melting pot



Preference Category         EligibilityYearly                               Numerical Limit

      1             &#8220;Persons of extraordinary ability&#8221; in the arts, science, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers, multinational executives and managers.                                 40,000*

      2                                 Members of the professions holding advanced degrees, or persons of exceptional abilities in the arts, science, or business.  
                                                                                            40,000**
      3                                Skilled workers with at least two years of training or experience, professionals with college degrees, or &#8220;other&#8221; workers for unskilled labor that is not temporary or seasonal.                   40,000***

                                                       &#8220;Other&#8221; unskilled laborers restricted to 5,000    

      4                                Certain &#8220;special immigrants&#8221; including religious workers, employees of U.S. foreign service posts, former U.S. government employees and other classes of aliens.                                    10,000

      5                               Persons who will invest $500,000 to $1 million in a job-creating enterprise that employs at least 10 full time U.S. workers.
                                                                                              10,000
*Plus any unused visas from the 4th and 5th preferences.

**Plus any unused visas from the 1st preference.

***Plus any unused visas from the 1st and 2nd preference.


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> Let me re phrase that. I think it is BS
> 
> If you care to be a fact checker go start at the beginning of this thread.
> 
> I don't think a forum like this should have any political stuff because it is too divisive.
> 
> Some of the members that come here for help may be refuges, immigrants,
> gay, poor white or black, and things that are said about them only because someone has an opinion is terrible.
> 
> So as long as that crap is allowed I will feel free to call BS when I think I see it.



if you feel so strongly about no political threads why are you always 
posting in one... 
you always pull this **** when someone  posts an opinion that you do not like
but you are the one that throws out all the insults and attacks.:down::down::down:
when others do not.


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> if you feel so strongly about no political threads why are you always
> posting in one...
> you always pull this **** when someone  posts an opinion that you do not like
> but you are the one that throws out all the insults and attacks.:down::down::down:
> when others do not.



:trophy:.................


----------



## Chris

Frodo, according to many this country was already on the right track and now is going backwards. I agree with them if the route of the country was to make it socialist or just another Canada or Norway. People have these allusions that that is what Americans want. Also many people like Phil are just told they are wrong or in this case spewing bs because others don't agree with their interpretation of America or government. 

Imagine this, put an ad up for a meeting at a city office on how to fix a crime problem. All are welcome. It will cost you 20 bucks to park. Only people that show up are 6 white men. In the real world not a problem but in today's society that is wrong and racist, now we need to stop the meeting and find a way to get a woman, a few people of different race and an immigrant just to make it so called fair.


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> Frodo, according to many this country was already on the right track and now is going backwards. I agree with them if the route of the country was to make it socialist or just another Canada or Norway. People have these allusions that that is what Americans want. Also many people like Phil are just told they are wrong or in this case spewing bs because others don't agree with their interpretation of America or government.
> 
> Imagine this, put an ad up for a meeting at a city office on how to fix a crime problem. All are welcome. It will cost you 20 bucks to park. Only people that show up are 6 white men. In the real world not a problem but in today's society that is wrong and racist, now we need to stop the meeting and find a way to get a woman, a few people of different race and an immigrant just to make it so called fair.



http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chicago-in-the-crosshairs-an-all-in-town-hall-874837571730


----------



## frodo

Chris said:


> Frodo, according to many this country was already on the right track and now is going backwards. I agree with them if the route of the country was to make it socialist or just another Canada or Norway. People have these allusions that that is what Americans want. Also many people like Phil are just told they are wrong or in this case spewing bs because others don't agree with their interpretation of America or government.
> 
> Imagine this, put an ad up for a meeting at a city office on how to fix a crime problem. All are welcome. It will cost you 20 bucks to park. Only people that show up are 6 white men. In the real world not a problem but in today's society that is wrong and racist, now we need to stop the meeting and find a way to get a woman, a few people of different race and an immigrant just to make it so called fair.




I understand what you are saying, 
my feelings, if you do not attend the meeting tough****ski
that is just like not voting, you snooze you loose

as far as the $20.00 parking, if the issue is important to you
walk a block, most Americans can benefit from the exercise.
I know i can   :hide:


I do not agree with any type of socialist govrment,  I want to remain free to do as i please say what i want and do as i want.
Canada is an open door to islam right now. I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT INVASION
and yes..it is an invasion of Christian countries not refugees fleeing isis
do the numbers.   refugee does not add up 
 yeah i am rambling..


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chicago-in-the-crosshairs-an-all-in-town-hall-874837571730



lol.....i am watching your link Neal,  

what exactly do you want me to see on this?

what i see is a room full of people saying they are doing every thing in there
power to fix the situation, but the situation is not turning it self around.

they say they need federal dollars for programs,  BUT refuse to follow the feds 
laws on immigration.  and will be loosing ALL of there federal dollars.
ie sanctuary city non compliance

at 10:00 what is this ''plan''   ?  

the citizens seem to think the mayors office is not doing a damn thing


----------

