Plus the gun control issue isn't a federal one. It should be up to the states to control themselves. Assault rifles may be necessary to have if our government starts treating us like they do the Iraqis. Our forefathers didn't want a government that invaded other countries knowing that what they do there is just practice for what they may do here.
We may have to kick the red coats out of USA again in about 20 years.
The federal government has the legal right to impose some gun control. If we had listened to Jefferson from the beginning we would not have had a standing army and could not have invaded other countries. Navy and Air force are ok, but no army or marines. If we have to restart our country and rewrite our constitution that is something i would strongly push for!
I think the term "blowback" isn't just isolated to nation's interventionalist policies. Bush will get his "blowback", he's pissed too many people off and befriended shady types. Why do you think he only invites supporters to his speeches? I wanted to attend his speech in Philly 4-5 years ago but couldn't because only regestered republicans with tikets could attend.
Ron Paul or that wacho Kucinich doesn't have a chance. Now there were tons of illegal acts by Hillary and Bill and when Bush came into office we thought that Bush was going to puruse legal channels to go after them. Bush didn't. So if Hitlery wins she is NOT GOING TO PURUSE BUSH. LOLOLOLOL.....you're never going to get Bush. Deal with it
You've drank way too much of the kool-aid... Freedom of speech and expression <u>still</u> allow people to protest and speak as they want freely. Bush never talked about going after Clinton pre-election, and there "illegal acts" were never really proven. You are right though, Hillary will never go after Bush, none of the "top-tier" candidates will, thats one reason they dont have my primary vote. If the media did not ignore Kucinich he would have a chance.
This is exactly what the left did in the 60's. They carried North Vietnamese flag during there demonstrations - all under the 1st admentment rights during the war and force the govenment to end the war so the North Vietname could declare a victory. Folks these people are not Americans. They are an enemy within our borders and they ought to watched by the F.B.I. and C.I.A.
You ever notice that A N S W E R on there website has Che Gueverat-shirts. Wasn't he a Marxist Communist? Now let me see if I have this right. A group that despises our form of government - that are hard core anti-America uses our Constitution to help the enemy 'win" Isn't this a form or treason? Of course it is these groups tend make it look like they are true patriotic Americans yet they use our Constitution to sabotage us? Aren't they a true enemy of Americans? Of course they are
Let's see. Bush supports pricing food and healthcare out of the reach of the average American while bringing in illegal aliens to work in the corporations and take jobs away from U.S. Citizens. Marxists at LEAST made provisions for housing and feeding even people who couldn't work. Now, who is the enemy of We the People?
You're talking about two extremes though. We need neither corporatism (government subsidese in large multinational corporations) nor marxism (government control of YOUR assets, which assumes ownership of your property and you have the privilige of using it).
We need freedom and government needs to butt out, if we had free market small businesses would thrive and we may even have the cure for cancer (which is free but stuck in a lab in Canadian college because the FDA won't let it in).
we need a return to following the constitution on government matters. Constitutionalism is reducing the role of government in peoples lives and puts responsibility in the hands of the individual. Good example of communist thought is Richardson suggesting that the government needs to step in and forbid junk food sold in schools to fight obesity.
I agree with almost everything you said, though I think the campaign against obesity is just another way to classify people and turn them against one another.
yep, that and control. it's about divide and conquer.
We're all Americans, it doesn't matter what race creer shape size color we are. There is a basic fundimental of cherishing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It may sound silly, but I want my daughter to have the right to eat a candy bar in elementary school. She knows personal responsibility and NOT knows enough not to eat too much candy or she'll get a tummy ache. We don't need a nanny for a government.
Government has no role in pricing food and medicine. If we had a real free market we would be able to import medicine from Mexico (which was exported by pharmacorp at a fraction of what it's usually sold in America).
3) There is going to be no indictments of anyone in the Bush Adminstration
4) WE are NOT leaving Iraq anytime soon. My suspision is that we won't even attempt to pull out troops to 2009
5)Hillary is going to be the nominee and she cannot win. She is too radical and boy does she have some scandles that we can SWIFT BOAT her. Oh she is going to be an easy picken.
I think if we can get Ron Paul, Kucinich, or Gravel in office we'll be out of Iraq ASAP and GET investigations into 9/11 (because it's what people are demanding). But then, does that mean Ron Paul have a real chance to become President? I'd love to get Ron Paul on a Unity ticket with Gravel or Kucinich. Ron Paul has very good economic and liberty knowledge.
Hillary is too radical? I cant vote for he cause shes too centrist. I don't trust she will take our country in a new direction. If shes unelectable i think its more the large group that is well left of center wont vote for her, shes obviously sold out.
Anyway, I sent an email to get Ron Paul's volunteers view on the DoP. I'm always skeptical of granting more power to the federal government, it could lead to corruption or worse, more bureaucracy.
International Partners in Peace. America needs your videos, pictures, and quotes from around the world in support of a peace policy. The Ron Paul message is hitting around the world, and people as far as Australia are supporting him for president. I attached a vid for more details.
our government should be one large department of peace. To have a DoP would mean that we give up and say that it is ok for our government to go to war. You know there is a checks and balances system already, Congress and Senate didn't do their job. I propose we make term limits so we have less corruption in the legislative branch.
We've seen bills before with enticing names, like the Patriot act.
Sec 102. Is a position where the policies and laws are already set in the states, the fed has no place there. Forcing gun control and a peace academy? What are the police for again?
Thats a big section, care to narrow down you concern with it. Is it where it talks about ensuring civil right or where it says we need to promote racial, religious, and ethnic tolerance? Also tell me where in that section it talks about gun control? Go read it again, right now your argument just seems anti-education and pro-gun.
promting of racial religious, and ethical tolerance is in our constitution anyway. But gun control. Let me see...
(5) analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns;
Yes, thats why in our constitution it says blacks are only worth 3/5ths of whites. There is still a large amount of racism in this country, your saying we should ignore it?
Ok... does it explicitly say changing the legality of guns? No... also some gun control is a good thing, assault rifles are unnecessary for the public to own. The constitution does <u>not</u> say there can be no gun control.
I'm saying it is the people, our culture, our society that learned to live together and NOT a mandate from an overseeing government.
Read your second amendment, it was specifically put there so the law abiding citizens can arm themselves against tyrants (those that aren't law abiding or government officials that want to make a monarchy).
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Very strong qualifying statement and does not say there can be no regulation. Wheres are militias?
Look up the Dick Act (I didn't name it) also, there ARE militias anyway, but the mainstream media tends to put a very negative spin on them for some reason.
Our national guardsmen, the ones that are supposed to protect our country from within, were actually our militiamen from the states merged together so we could send them to WWII
I know the national guard once were militias, but now its a stretch to say they are seeing as the army has control over them. The militias we have now are few and far between. Never knew the act name that made the guard what it is today though, interesting. ...
Well what I think happend was that militiamen where gathered up and nationalized into the national guard back when the act was put in place. The militiamen you see today is the continuation of what was granted to us in the constitution in spite of this act. And anyone can be in a militia, they are trained to train.
...I believe in state or local militias (not connected to the federal government) and there right to have whatever weapons in there arsenal they see fit. As soon as the state militias merged in the Dick Act and became part of the army we lost our state militias. I believe in disbanding a standing army and breaking up the national guard.
ok so there we go. Militiamen are simply citizens in the local area that also train in supporting other citizens. They are doctors, lawyers, military veterans, construction workers, and basically good people. Good people that should have assault rifles and pistols to defend our country.
More or less, I believe militias can be anyone and some regulation (more or less to ensure safe use of weapons) is necessary. Also I would recommend all weapons above a certain level should stay where the militia is based and not in individuals households. If a real militia system was put in place i would encourage everyone to join a local militia. The national guard basically got rid of state militias though.
Yeah and the members of the national guard would actually guard our country here as militia members.
But I think you get the point. There is a second wave of red coats comming from within, we need a force to push back the monarchy. Hopefully, I pray, it could be done in peace.
Yeah, i was gonna say that too, "indians" (native Americans) had no rights to vote. racism was written into the constitution, and there is still much racism today.
So before I make a rash decision, what will the DoP do? Will it give the federal government more control to force more mandates on us, or is it simply there to counter the DoD?
If you look up info on the Department of Peace you could easily find out. The bill is HR 808, go read it before you make foolish assertions. Having a DOP in no way is giving up OR saying its ok to goto war. The government has alot to do, and peace is a big part of it, but they have many other things to focus on they cant just be "one large department of peace". Read the bill and learn. Its about peace within and with without our country.
"...shall be headed by a Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate..." That means Bush could appoint, with consent of senate, the DoP secretary.
There's more that I'd like to question on this bill. I'm all for peace and non-intervention. This bill isn't only about that though.
Should this bill pass and be law it would not do so till the very end of the Bush term. Almost all appointments are done in that fashion. The Senate, like with all appointments could turn down the candidate. The only way around it (as with all appointments) would be through a temporary recess appointment. This is the usual way to choose who heads a department. The bill is <u>very</u> strong and well thought out.
What about future Bush-like Presidents? What is to keep a President from appointing a Karl Rove as the DoP secretary? my argument is that the bill is too strong and grants scope equal to that of a Stalin's Department of Information, complete with a non-violent army that will get info out. Abuse of this position is easy, one could make "suggestions" to media and teachers to put out "peaceful" messages. These messages could be "Obey your gov, to keep the peace we will take your freedoms".
Wow, the senate would be able to stop appointment of people like Karl Rove, we already went over this. It is not like Stalin's Department of Information, in the bill it states it will protect civil liberties, <u>not</u> take them away! It does not at any point in the bill say propaganda is acceptable !
look at the scope man, it covers all information outlets, the secretary would have reign over the information and would decide what being "at peace" means.
No, it means someone like me could serve our country, never learn anything about how to be violent and still get the benefits military people get upon exit. Its about social service that does not have to be military.
Furthermore the DoP will absorb the peace corps, why? To be honest after reading the bill one of the only things I would agree with is having a Peace day. You have to read it, basically it makes a "peace army" but doesn't define it's functions besides that of a non-violent intervention. and a department, even a DOP to have such a large scope of jurisdiction can be abused easily. Education, media, 'military', I mean it sounds more like a propganda bill than anything.
look at us, we're fighting and I think we both want peace. The thing about me is, and I think it's very patriotic to do so, is that I question my gov in ALL actions. I read between the lines, there is too much scope of control for the secretary of peace in this bill. It's our job to NOT accept what congressmen try to pass by 'as is'.
Why not just declare peace around the world and send the troops home? What's this about forcing information to our children and what we watch on tv?
You read between lines into your own conspiracy theories. By the statements you've said in the prior i believe you are more against this bill simply because it gives some power to the government. You are taking and twisting the bill to say things it doesn't. I have read this bill, it has 67 cosponsors in congress, some of the most honest ones as well. I do believe there is corruption, but you are just taking things way out of context.
It's not a conspiracy theory, look at the scope of power this grants. I'm not saying there isn't good intentions, but I see VAST amounts of abuse, especially if we get another Bush or Clinton in office.
You are reading more into it then would ever be allowed. Have you ever read the bills establishing other federal departments. Its similarly written and its scope is no greater.
grow a pair of fckn BALLS bunch of faggets
fastblasterxxx 2 years ago
LETS LOVE EACHOTHERR <33
MarcMayham 2 years ago
There you go!
Love, Hope, Peace, & Christ Is With Us All,
Cal-el
CalJennings 2 years ago
yes, he definently is. =]
MarcMayham 2 years ago
Plus the gun control issue isn't a federal one. It should be up to the states to control themselves. Assault rifles may be necessary to have if our government starts treating us like they do the Iraqis. Our forefathers didn't want a government that invaded other countries knowing that what they do there is just practice for what they may do here.
We may have to kick the red coats out of USA again in about 20 years.
soulmantim 4 years ago
The federal government has the legal right to impose some gun control. If we had listened to Jefferson from the beginning we would not have had a standing army and could not have invaded other countries. Navy and Air force are ok, but no army or marines. If we have to restart our country and rewrite our constitution that is something i would strongly push for!
ElCarcho 4 years ago
Christ will get Bush. Mark my word.
CalJennings 4 years ago
I think the term "blowback" isn't just isolated to nation's interventionalist policies. Bush will get his "blowback", he's pissed too many people off and befriended shady types. Why do you think he only invites supporters to his speeches? I wanted to attend his speech in Philly 4-5 years ago but couldn't because only regestered republicans with tikets could attend.
soulmantim 4 years ago
I bet he leaves the country and live happy and rich in Dubai or some place like that... thats saying he actually allows another election.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
Ron Paul or that wacho Kucinich doesn't have a chance. Now there were tons of illegal acts by Hillary and Bill and when Bush came into office we thought that Bush was going to puruse legal channels to go after them. Bush didn't. So if Hitlery wins she is NOT GOING TO PURUSE BUSH. LOLOLOLOL.....you're never going to get Bush. Deal with it
capsource1 4 years ago
We the People might have somthing to say about that!
CalJennings 4 years ago
You've drank way too much of the kool-aid... Freedom of speech and expression <u>still</u> allow people to protest and speak as they want freely. Bush never talked about going after Clinton pre-election, and there "illegal acts" were never really proven. You are right though, Hillary will never go after Bush, none of the "top-tier" candidates will, thats one reason they dont have my primary vote. If the media did not ignore Kucinich he would have a chance.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
This is exactly what the left did in the 60's. They carried North Vietnamese flag during there demonstrations - all under the 1st admentment rights during the war and force the govenment to end the war so the North Vietname could declare a victory. Folks these people are not Americans. They are an enemy within our borders and they ought to watched by the F.B.I. and C.I.A.
capsource1 4 years ago
You ever notice that A N S W E R on there website has Che Gueverat-shirts. Wasn't he a Marxist Communist? Now let me see if I have this right. A group that despises our form of government - that are hard core anti-America uses our Constitution to help the enemy 'win" Isn't this a form or treason? Of course it is these groups tend make it look like they are true patriotic Americans yet they use our Constitution to sabotage us? Aren't they a true enemy of Americans? Of course they are
capsource1 4 years ago
Let's see. Bush supports pricing food and healthcare out of the reach of the average American while bringing in illegal aliens to work in the corporations and take jobs away from U.S. Citizens. Marxists at LEAST made provisions for housing and feeding even people who couldn't work. Now, who is the enemy of We the People?
CalJennings 4 years ago
You're talking about two extremes though. We need neither corporatism (government subsidese in large multinational corporations) nor marxism (government control of YOUR assets, which assumes ownership of your property and you have the privilige of using it).
We need freedom and government needs to butt out, if we had free market small businesses would thrive and we may even have the cure for cancer (which is free but stuck in a lab in Canadian college because the FDA won't let it in).
soulmantim 4 years ago
we need a return to following the constitution on government matters. Constitutionalism is reducing the role of government in peoples lives and puts responsibility in the hands of the individual. Good example of communist thought is Richardson suggesting that the government needs to step in and forbid junk food sold in schools to fight obesity.
soulmantim 4 years ago
I agree with almost everything you said, though I think the campaign against obesity is just another way to classify people and turn them against one another.
CalJennings 4 years ago
yep, that and control. it's about divide and conquer.
We're all Americans, it doesn't matter what race creer shape size color we are. There is a basic fundimental of cherishing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It may sound silly, but I want my daughter to have the right to eat a candy bar in elementary school. She knows personal responsibility and NOT knows enough not to eat too much candy or she'll get a tummy ache. We don't need a nanny for a government.
soulmantim 4 years ago
Right on!
CalJennings 4 years ago
Government has no role in pricing food and medicine. If we had a real free market we would be able to import medicine from Mexico (which was exported by pharmacorp at a fraction of what it's usually sold in America).
soulmantim 4 years ago
1) Bush is NOT going to be impeached.
2) There is going to be no investigation in 9/11
3) There is going to be no indictments of anyone in the Bush Adminstration
4) WE are NOT leaving Iraq anytime soon. My suspision is that we won't even attempt to pull out troops to 2009
5)Hillary is going to be the nominee and she cannot win. She is too radical and boy does she have some scandles that we can SWIFT BOAT her. Oh she is going to be an easy picken.
Did I miss anything
capsource1 4 years ago
wow very cynical of you.
I think if we can get Ron Paul, Kucinich, or Gravel in office we'll be out of Iraq ASAP and GET investigations into 9/11 (because it's what people are demanding). But then, does that mean Ron Paul have a real chance to become President? I'd love to get Ron Paul on a Unity ticket with Gravel or Kucinich. Ron Paul has very good economic and liberty knowledge.
soulmantim 4 years ago
Hillary is too radical? I cant vote for he cause shes too centrist. I don't trust she will take our country in a new direction. If shes unelectable i think its more the large group that is well left of center wont vote for her, shes obviously sold out.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
Anyway, I sent an email to get Ron Paul's volunteers view on the DoP. I'm always skeptical of granting more power to the federal government, it could lead to corruption or worse, more bureaucracy.
soulmantim 4 years ago
International Partners in Peace. America needs your videos, pictures, and quotes from around the world in support of a peace policy. The Ron Paul message is hitting around the world, and people as far as Australia are supporting him for president. I attached a vid for more details.
soulmantim 4 years ago
freewebs*com/spaceeagleproductions/index*htm
CalJennings 4 years ago
The only way is Ron Paul
ssssaaafff 4 years ago
The Battle of Jerico. Kucinich followers (musicians, artists, etc.) up front. Paul supporters backing them up with the teeth.
CalJennings 4 years ago
Ron Paul is not the answer, Dennis Kucinich is!
ElCarcho 4 years ago
As far as peace policy and non-intervention goes, Ron Paul and Kucinich is on the same page.
soulmantim 4 years ago
Not exactly... Kucinich wants a Department of Peace, Ron Paul wants to cut departments, i doubt he would support the Department of Peace.
Not to mention on almost every other issue they are diametrically opposed.
They both believe in non-violence, but have far different approaches, Kucinich's approach is much better.
<b>Nobody but Dennis Kucinich in 2008!</b>
ElCarcho 4 years ago
our government should be one large department of peace. To have a DoP would mean that we give up and say that it is ok for our government to go to war. You know there is a checks and balances system already, Congress and Senate didn't do their job. I propose we make term limits so we have less corruption in the legislative branch.
soulmantim 4 years ago
We've seen bills before with enticing names, like the Patriot act.
Sec 102. Is a position where the policies and laws are already set in the states, the fed has no place there. Forcing gun control and a peace academy? What are the police for again?
soulmantim 4 years ago
Thats a big section, care to narrow down you concern with it. Is it where it talks about ensuring civil right or where it says we need to promote racial, religious, and ethnic tolerance? Also tell me where in that section it talks about gun control? Go read it again, right now your argument just seems anti-education and pro-gun.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
promting of racial religious, and ethical tolerance is in our constitution anyway. But gun control. Let me see...
(5) analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns;
soulmantim 4 years ago
Yes, thats why in our constitution it says blacks are only worth 3/5ths of whites. There is still a large amount of racism in this country, your saying we should ignore it?
Ok... does it explicitly say changing the legality of guns? No... also some gun control is a good thing, assault rifles are unnecessary for the public to own. The constitution does <u>not</u> say there can be no gun control.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
which line is that?
I'm saying it is the people, our culture, our society that learned to live together and NOT a mandate from an overseeing government.
Read your second amendment, it was specifically put there so the law abiding citizens can arm themselves against tyrants (those that aren't law abiding or government officials that want to make a monarchy).
We had Blackwater Mercs in New Orleans.
soulmantim 4 years ago
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Very strong qualifying statement and does not say there can be no regulation. Wheres are militias?
ElCarcho 4 years ago
Look up the Dick Act (I didn't name it) also, there ARE militias anyway, but the mainstream media tends to put a very negative spin on them for some reason.
Our national guardsmen, the ones that are supposed to protect our country from within, were actually our militiamen from the states merged together so we could send them to WWII
soulmantim 4 years ago
I know the national guard once were militias, but now its a stretch to say they are seeing as the army has control over them. The militias we have now are few and far between. Never knew the act name that made the guard what it is today though, interesting. ...
ElCarcho 4 years ago
Well what I think happend was that militiamen where gathered up and nationalized into the national guard back when the act was put in place. The militiamen you see today is the continuation of what was granted to us in the constitution in spite of this act. And anyone can be in a militia, they are trained to train.
soulmantim 4 years ago
...I believe in state or local militias (not connected to the federal government) and there right to have whatever weapons in there arsenal they see fit. As soon as the state militias merged in the Dick Act and became part of the army we lost our state militias. I believe in disbanding a standing army and breaking up the national guard.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
ok so there we go. Militiamen are simply citizens in the local area that also train in supporting other citizens. They are doctors, lawyers, military veterans, construction workers, and basically good people. Good people that should have assault rifles and pistols to defend our country.
soulmantim 4 years ago
More or less, I believe militias can be anyone and some regulation (more or less to ensure safe use of weapons) is necessary. Also I would recommend all weapons above a certain level should stay where the militia is based and not in individuals households. If a real militia system was put in place i would encourage everyone to join a local militia. The national guard basically got rid of state militias though.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
Yeah and the members of the national guard would actually guard our country here as militia members.
But I think you get the point. There is a second wave of red coats comming from within, we need a force to push back the monarchy. Hopefully, I pray, it could be done in peace.
soulmantim 4 years ago
More like fascist dictatorship, but i agree.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
A Monarchy isn't too far off that's why America was created...
anyway...
peace!
soulmantim 4 years ago
Ha! At least blacks got 3/5ths. How much did Native Americans get? NOTHING!
CalJennings 4 years ago
Yeah, i was gonna say that too, "indians" (native Americans) had no rights to vote. racism was written into the constitution, and there is still much racism today.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
they got some beads or something like that.
soulmantim 4 years ago
So before I make a rash decision, what will the DoP do? Will it give the federal government more control to force more mandates on us, or is it simply there to counter the DoD?
soulmantim 4 years ago
If you look up info on the Department of Peace you could easily find out. The bill is HR 808, go read it before you make foolish assertions. Having a DOP in no way is giving up OR saying its ok to goto war. The government has alot to do, and peace is a big part of it, but they have many other things to focus on they cant just be "one large department of peace". Read the bill and learn. Its about peace within and with without our country.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
Concerns:
"...shall be headed by a Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate..." That means Bush could appoint, with consent of senate, the DoP secretary.
There's more that I'd like to question on this bill. I'm all for peace and non-intervention. This bill isn't only about that though.
soulmantim 4 years ago
Should this bill pass and be law it would not do so till the very end of the Bush term. Almost all appointments are done in that fashion. The Senate, like with all appointments could turn down the candidate. The only way around it (as with all appointments) would be through a temporary recess appointment. This is the usual way to choose who heads a department. The bill is <u>very</u> strong and well thought out.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
What about future Bush-like Presidents? What is to keep a President from appointing a Karl Rove as the DoP secretary? my argument is that the bill is too strong and grants scope equal to that of a Stalin's Department of Information, complete with a non-violent army that will get info out. Abuse of this position is easy, one could make "suggestions" to media and teachers to put out "peaceful" messages. These messages could be "Obey your gov, to keep the peace we will take your freedoms".
soulmantim 4 years ago
Wow, the senate would be able to stop appointment of people like Karl Rove, we already went over this. It is not like Stalin's Department of Information, in the bill it states it will protect civil liberties, <u>not</u> take them away! It does not at any point in the bill say propaganda is acceptable !
ElCarcho 4 years ago
not if it was a recess appointment.
look at the scope man, it covers all information outlets, the secretary would have reign over the information and would decide what being "at peace" means.
soulmantim 4 years ago
That's what the peace corps is for.
This also assumes that our militarymen practice
violent service all the time when there is more to them than boots on the ground and rifle in hand.
soulmantim 4 years ago
No, it means someone like me could serve our country, never learn anything about how to be violent and still get the benefits military people get upon exit. Its about social service that does not have to be military.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
Furthermore the DoP will absorb the peace corps, why? To be honest after reading the bill one of the only things I would agree with is having a Peace day. You have to read it, basically it makes a "peace army" but doesn't define it's functions besides that of a non-violent intervention. and a department, even a DOP to have such a large scope of jurisdiction can be abused easily. Education, media, 'military', I mean it sounds more like a propganda bill than anything.
soulmantim 4 years ago
As an altrnitive way to serve you country without have to be in the military... hence <u>non-violent</u> civil service.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
look at us, we're fighting and I think we both want peace. The thing about me is, and I think it's very patriotic to do so, is that I question my gov in ALL actions. I read between the lines, there is too much scope of control for the secretary of peace in this bill. It's our job to NOT accept what congressmen try to pass by 'as is'.
Why not just declare peace around the world and send the troops home? What's this about forcing information to our children and what we watch on tv?
soulmantim 4 years ago
You read between lines into your own conspiracy theories. By the statements you've said in the prior i believe you are more against this bill simply because it gives some power to the government. You are taking and twisting the bill to say things it doesn't. I have read this bill, it has 67 cosponsors in congress, some of the most honest ones as well. I do believe there is corruption, but you are just taking things way out of context.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
It's not a conspiracy theory, look at the scope of power this grants. I'm not saying there isn't good intentions, but I see VAST amounts of abuse, especially if we get another Bush or Clinton in office.
soulmantim 4 years ago
You are reading more into it then would ever be allowed. Have you ever read the bills establishing other federal departments. Its similarly written and its scope is no greater.
ElCarcho 4 years ago
NATIONAL IMPEACHMENT DAY is this TUESDAY AUGUST 21st!!
Spread the word and search "v2impeach" on YOUTUBE now!
V2impeach 4 years ago