Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Supreme Court Will Not Hear NSA Case

Frederick78 Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 3:51 PM
This is what is wrong with the Federal courts and especially the Supreme Court. They are the third branch of government in what our forefathers intended to be the checks and balances to keep the President or Congress from usurping the Constitution. You would thing that issues that define what the Constitution means or doesn't mean or of laws, regulations, and executive orders that may violate the Constitution would go to the head of the line as being fast tracked. It may take years before NSA issues involving the 4th Amendment and rights to privacy now make their way to the Supreme Court. Years of potential violations of the Constitution and citizens rights. And courts are supposed to defend the Constitution, but when in doubt they acquiesce to the politicians who give a rat's flying potato about the Constitution as long as they can get votes. When in doubt or uncertain, courts should always rule in favor of the limits the Constitution was intended to impose on the Federal government.
Boy am I impressed. It now takes the US a year to deploy two destroyers to the vicinity of Japan. I bet China and North Korea knees are shaking so badly they can hardly stand up. We've come a long way in this country. It's a shame that we took a wrong turn. Complacent people will become complacent slaves.
I served 21 years in the Marine Corps as an infantry officer. More than three of those years were in combat. I witnessed hundreds of times Marines who put their lives on the line to protect, support, and to rescue fellow Marines. I've witnessed fellow Marines die rushing to save their comrades. I myself was willing to stand my ground in a desperate fight. I would never abandon any of my Marines as long as their was a possibility to save them. Even then, I witnessed them exposing themselves to heavy automatic fire to recover the body of a dead Marine. John 15:13 -- Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You don't seem to have much experience dealing with death. Not everyone can face the possibility of dying; but you'd be surprised how many do and do so with courage and conviction. I saw it every day for more than three years.
Hmmmm. There is no need to plead with Russia to annex Alaska. There was an intermittent land bridge between Russia and Alaska during the Pleistocene ice ages at which time unproven theory has it that people walked from Russia to Alaska. So with climate change's doom and gloom predictions that the world with either incinerate or become an ice ball because of global warming within the next few years, why not just wait until either we incinerate and die or we enter a new ice age and the land bridge reforms and those that want to retrace their ancestors steps can walk back to Russia. I really don't see the issue here.
In response to:

Anthony Weiner Has A New Job

Frederick78 Wrote: Mar 25, 2014 10:12 AM
You can't make this stuff up. A liar who has admitted to having incredibly poor judgment in multiple sexting relationships behind his wife's back who was forced to resign from a Congress that itself has only a 12 percent favorable rating and who was forced to drop out of the NYC mayor's race because lacked honesty (In NYC for God's sake!!) is going to somehow give advice to Business Insider readers. Is there anyone in their right mind who thinks he/she could get honest sound advice from this snake oil salesman?
You obviously don't know your colonial American history, except taught in public schools today. At the time, the colonies were under English rule with English laws. Those laws allowed for slaves to be imported to the colonies. So if you are a tobacco farmer do you pay union wages to local Englishmen or do you employ slaves to produce tobacco? Don's criticize what was legal in the 1600's, 1700's, and up to 1860 on the founding fathers. If you were in business before 1913 you didn't have to pay federal income tax. Does that mean after 1913 your were a criminal? Law change for the good and for the bad. Don't try to judge what was right or wrong in history by today's standards. If you do, you are a complete moron.
If Obama is so toxic to liberals, then why do they lock arms and ram through everything he wants?? My guess is that the love Obama's policy of bigger government and intrusive intervention into our daily lives, but that they don't like the people's response and try to pretend that they want to distance themselves from Obama. The truth is, however, that it's the Democrats who have enabled Obama and his legislation. They are one and the same and only the low-information voter doesn't get it--which means the Democrats will retain power regardless of how disastrous their policies are.
A decline in ethics within the Services shouldn't be surprising. The more Congress and Defense Secretaries use the military as a laboratory for social experiments, the more it becomes a reflection of the decline in ethics in society. Any organization will have problems from time to time, but the military will retain high moral standards when we stop treating like lab rats.
There is only one way to win a war: you must absolutely crush the enemy's will to continue to fight. In the case of the War on Terror, that includes the harshest prison sentences for terrorists. Uh, never mind. Obama already declared he won the War on Terror. But he made my point. Notice how he crushed the terrorists' will to continue Jihad without mercy or pity and got them to surrender unconditionally.
Hmmm, I wonder if you are illegally uninsured if you get the same free benefits of those who are in this country illegally? There is something very wrong with a country that treats illegal aliens with more deference and benefits than its own citizens. Time for a major change in direction.
As Obama said, Obamacare is a whole lot more than just a website. In that light I'm reminded of Nancy Pelosi's admonition that we have to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it. And then there is Sebilus' admission that she really needed 5 years to develop the Obamacare system. Strange that she knew that she needed fiver years and didn't request a delay so that it could be done right, but that's another story. You see, as Pelosi predicted, no one really knows what's in it yet and therefore they can't tell what the consequences will be as it is implemented. I've been the project manager for a large complex roll out of a completely new computerized system. It's not only difficult, but it takes months of testing and even then you can't find all of the gotcha bugs--that will take a year or so. But the real problem is that systems like Obamacare are also dealing with dozens of potential domino effects and cultural biases to overcome. You don't just turn a sixth of the US economy upside down and be confident that you have eliminated all of the unintended consequences. If I were you, I wouldn't declare victory. There is no evidence yet that the government has gotten any of Obamacare right or even thought it through. You've got 2,000 pages of law supported by 20,000 pages of new regulations. What could possibly go wrong? Trust me, there is a whole lot more than just a website that will need to be fixed. And I guarantee you the companies build this thing don't yet know how long or potentially damaging that list is.
Previous 11 - 20 Next