Favorite Political Quotes
Don Johnson
and Jefferson quotes appreciated.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves
amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling
through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar
to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He
rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so
that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor
is the plague." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You
have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin
dj
gabbydott
constitution. Article 1, paragraph 1 reads: "Human dignity shall be
inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state
authority." Human dignity is thus mentioned even before the right to
life. This has a significant impact on German law-making and
jurisdiction in both serious and trivial items." (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_dignity)
In everyday language we say: Human dignity is inviolable.
This is a very different approach towards life compared to the
American luck principle.
Ian Pollard
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own
kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich
on the poor."
Ian
ornamentalmind
“The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish
the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every
human being to liberty and well-being” – Emma Goldman
frantheman
On 22 Mrz., 04:23, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You
> have to catch it yourself."
> ---Benjamin Franklin
"It's simple to be happy. It's hard to be simple."
---Eckart von Hirschhausen
:-)
Francis
Don Johnson
fiery Paine later to vent my frustrations. Was at dinner at a steak
house last night and I told the table about my idea for the new
American flag. What we'll do after all the red states secede is
we'll just turn that square red and put a hammer and sickle in it.
The rest of the wussy blue states stay white on a field of blue.
Strips don't change.
And being measurable is difficult. to remain so requires me to do a
whole lot of nothing. Not solving the various problems plaguing me
and going out of my way to complain about things i can't control.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
>
>
ornamentalmind
Don…maybe you were drinking while eating cow? ...it's really difficult
to tell. Regardless…for the true patriots here, the symbolism is much
less cynical.
Charles Thompson, Secretary of the Continental Congress, reporting to
Congress on the Seal, stated:
"The colors of the pales (the vertical stripes) are those used in the
flag of the United States of America; White signifies purity and
innocence, Red, hardiness & valour, and Blue, the color of the Chief
(the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance &
justice."
Also this from a book about the flag published in 1977 by the House of
Representatives...
"The star is a symbol of the heavens and the divine goal to which man
has aspired from time immemorial; the stripe is symbolic of the rays
of light emanating from the sun."
http://www.usflag.org/colors.html
IF one is in fact a patriot, this will be well known. Of course,
today’s dumbing down of US citizens produces a simple polarization…of
‘right’ & ‘left’…and all of the associated ignorant
oversimplifications and we/them ‘ism this implies. As to red & blue
states, we know how that worked out, don’t we? Lest one forgets, here
is the map on that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoO14Yt9rqw
“And being measurable is difficult. to remain so requires me to do a
whole lot of nothing. Not solving the various problems plaguing me
and going out of my way to complain about things i can't control.” –
DJ
Repeat after me:
“God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
The courage to change the things that I can;
And the wisdom to know the difference.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
iam deheretic
How true it is Francis
Allan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
--
(
)
I_D Allan
frantheman
leftists in Washington think that they can pass this thing through,
cram it through, with disregard to consider the will of the people,
disregard of these constitutional legal traditional processes which
have thus far been used in America's processes to allow policy to be
adopted that do adhere to the will of the people."
-- Sarah Palin
Wow! Deep, deep thoughts! Have I got this right ... a group of
leftists in Washington, unelected by the American people, have pushed
through a proposal of an unelected president, in an illegal,
unconstitutional extra-parliamentary way? The people of the USA are
indeed fortunate to have advocates of due process and constitutional
parliamentary procedures such as Ms. Palin ... (oh yes, and isn't her
effortless command of the English language inspiring?)
Francis
On 22 Mrz., 04:23, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
Don Johnson
drinks though.
I don't like the way the country is going. Neither, incidentally, do
most Americans. I think if you based the red/blue map of the USA on
opinion today the entire country would be blood red. We have a short
attention span however and liberals don't change their spots over one
issue. We're stuck with the new bill and they'll figure it out and
still vote demo come Nov. Repubs will get a majority back but not a
super majority. That usually happens anyway during these 'tweener
elections.
I have no idea what I was talking about when I said this:
“And being measurable is difficult. to remain so requires me to do a
whole lot of nothing. Not solving the various problems plaguing me
and going out of my way to complain about things i can't control.” –
I was really tired and I don't remember what I was trying to say.
Sorry it didn't make any sense it doesn't to me either. I think I
must have deleted part of it by mistake and now can't remember what
the hell I was talking about.
Here's some promised Paine:
I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well
intended hint. We ought to reflect that there are three different
ways, by which an independency may hereafter be effected; and that one
of those three, will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By
the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power; or by
a mob. It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and
the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already
remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an
independency be brought about by the first of those means, we have
every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the
noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in
our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the
present, has not happened since the days of Noah until now. The
birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as
numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of
freedom from the event of a few months. The reflection is awful and in
this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry
cavilings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed
against the business of a world.…
In short, independence is the only bond that can tie and keep us
together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally
shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a cruel enemy.
We shall then too be on a proper footing to treat with Britain; for
there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court will be less
hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than
with those she denominates "rebellious subjects," for terms of
accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for
conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we
have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain
a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by
independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the
trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in England will be still
with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it.
And if this offer is not accepted, other courts may be applied to. On
these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to
refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this pamphlet,
it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be refuted,
or, that the party in favor of it are too numerous to be opposed.
Wherefore instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful
curiosity, let each of us hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of
friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of
oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the
names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among
us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a
virtuous supporter of the rights of mankind and of the free and
independent states of America.
SOURCE: Paine, Thomas. "Common Sense." Philadelphia: self-published
pamphlet, 1776.
dj
ornamentalmind
inspiring?…” - fran
…as is her lack of tenacity when it comes to remaining in office!
Oh, and for those enamored with sentence diagramming, be sure to read
and look at:
“Diagramming Sarah. Can Palin's sentences stand up to a grammarian?”
http://www.slate.com/id/2201158/
And from both sides of the Atlantic:
“Sarah Palin: Every English teacher's worst nightmare”
http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-eve.html
and
“Sarah Palin's political gibberish”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/02/sarah.palin.election.language
> > dj- Hide quoted text -
Ian Pollard
> I did have cow last night. Split a 16 oz. sirloin with my dad. No
> drinks though.
Don, have you ever been to a BBQ place near Austin called Salt Lick? I
saw it on Man v Food the other night and it made me hungry. Hungry in
the way only hunks of dead animal cooking over a pit can.
> I don't like the way the country is going. Neither, incidentally, do
> most Americans. I think if you based the red/blue map of the USA on
> opinion today the entire country would be blood red. We have a short
> attention span however and liberals don't change their spots over one
> issue. We're stuck with the new bill and they'll figure it out and
> still vote demo come Nov. Repubs will get a majority back but not a
> super majority. That usually happens anyway during these 'tweener
> elections.
I don't think things will be that different, Don. The world won't end
because of this bill, but hopefully it'll leave you broke enough to
not go dragging our arses into any more wars.
Ian
Don Johnson
She's referring to the process known as reconciliation. Basically only requiring a simple majority, 51%, rather then 60% to pass major legislation. While it's been done before by both sides of the aisle it has never been done for something this important. Other major forms of legislation to do with healthcare like social security and medicare and medicaid passed with bipartisan support. Not so this one. Add to this the intricacies of the Slaughter Rules and chaos reigns.
This is really very huge and very risky politically for the current Congress. I think the Republican howling at the moon some politicians are doing is inappropriate and unnecessary. We should be focusing on dealing with what we have and stopping a further slide into Soviet style socialism.
Here's a short description of how this came to be I've stolen from Taranto's Best Of The Web Today from last week. It's an interesting journey through manipulation that both appalls and fascinates me. While your average American sleeps through it all.
Democrats trying to force through ObamaCare over the will of the voters are transforming the House of Representatives into a procedural funhouse hall of mirrors. "House Republicans announced a plan Tuesday that would force Democrats to vote on whether they should have a vote," the Washington Post reports.
Let's try to explain. Late last year, the House and Senate each passed its own version of ObamaCare. Normally, these bills would go to a "conference committee," at which selected congressmen from both chambers would iron out the differences between them, producing a "conference report"--a single bill that would become law after both chambers approve it and the president signs it.
Scott Brown's election made it impossible to enact ObamaCare using the usual procedure. Republican senators now number 41, enough to prevent any conference report from coming to the floor for a vote. For whatever reason--and we'll speculate on this in a moment--President Obama was determined to ram this thing through despite the message the voters of Massachusetts sent in January. So congressional Democrats had to come up with a Plan B.
Since the House, unlike the Senate, operates for the most part by simple majority rule, the simplest solution would be for the House to pass the version of ObamaCare that the Senate already approved. It could then go to President Obama for his signature without any further Senate action required. Take that, Massachuses and Massachusettes!
But this option, while procedurally simple, was politically impossible. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, "Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill." Some liberal House members view it as insufficiently socialistic since, unlike the House bill, it would not put the government directly into the business of selling insurance (the so-called public option). And most everyone is squeamish about the special deals struck to win the votes of senators like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, Florida's Bill Nelson and Connecticut's Joe Lieberman. Principled moderates all, they steadfastly refused to vote for legislation they didn't believe in unless the price was right.
Democrats thus had to find a way of getting the Senate to make some changes. They alighted on "reconciliation," a procedure through which certain legislation involving the federal budget can go through the Senate on a simple majority vote. The House would pass the Senate bill, and both houses would pass the reconciliation bill, yielding a final product that, if all went well, would be merely miserable as opposed to horrible.
Up to this point, the procedural logic makes sense even if the political logic doesn't. But now things take a bizarre turn. The promise of reconciliation isn't enough to persuade some representatives to set aside their objections to the Senate bill. The result is the delightfully named "Slaughter rule," under which the House, instead of approving the Senate bill, would approve a "rule" that would "deem" the Senate bill to have "passed."
Republicans object to this bit of trickery--hence their effort to force a vote on holding a vote. "By supporting this resolution, Democrats can demonstrate that they will not try to hide from their constituents," the Post quotes Minority Leader John Boehner as saying.
What will probably happen is that Democrats will block the vote on whether to hold a vote on the bill. Then--assuming Pelosi is able to scrape together a majority, which remains uncertain--they will vote on the rule to deem the Senate bill passed. They would thus bypass both the vote on whether to hold the vote and the vote itself.
But they would still have to approve the "rule" to "deem" the bill "passed," which--assuming the courts either approve of this procedural dodge or decide the question is not justiciable--is the functional equivalent of voting for the Senate bill.
The Post reports that Democrats "suggested Republicans were trying to distract from the real discussion of what's actually in the reform bill. . . . 'If you don't want to talk about substance, [you] talk about process,' Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said." The Washington Times quotes Rep. Steny Hoyer, Pelosi's No. 2: " 'So what,' says [sic] the American people. What they're interested in is what resulted. 'What did you do for me and my family to make my life more secure and better and greater quality.' And that's what we're trying to do."
But if the substance of the bill is as good as they say it is--indeed, if it is anything other than a monstrosity--why do they have to come up with one procedural gimmick after another to persuade their fellow partisans to approve it?
Furthermore, especially if the American people care about substance and not process, the Slaughter rule looks delusional. Is any voter going to judge his congressman more favorably because he voted for a "rule" to "deem" the Senate bill "passed" rather than cast the substantively identical vote to pass the bill? Is any wavering member of Congress foolish enough to expect that his constituents will make this distinction?
Admittedly, one can't rule out the possibility of congressmen behaving foolishly. Perhaps Pelosi and Hoyer are close to a majority and the Slaughter scam is targeted at a handful of waverers whom they know to be especially gullible.
But such tactics seem more likely to backfire. CNN, for example, reports that undecided Pennsylvania Democrat Jason Altmire "said he doesn't support Slaughter's idea because it 'increases the opportunity for the public to say, "You know what, I'm not comfortable with this process." ' "
What accounts for the relentless drive to ram ObamaCare through every procedural obstacle, regardless of the political cost? Ideological zeal, from Obama himself above all, is part of the explanation, but it isn't sufficient. One can, after all, be ideologically committed to a goal without falling into a self-defeating obsession.
There seems to be an emotional desperation at work here. The legislative success of ObamaCare has become so tied up with Obama's sense of himself that he feels he must push ahead--and to some extent, the leaders in Congress feel the same way. Obama is not the calm rationalist he seemed during the campaign. But while there's a place for passion in politics, to be governed by a politician who fails to govern his passions is a frightening and creepy experience.
dj
Don Johnson
Let's hear some good quotes. I'd appreciate something from religious persons as a good contribution if it has a political flavor to it. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
I bet various Popes have had some controversial opinions and voiced them over the years. It's why they only let old guys be Pope. Or they'd have too much time to gain too much political power. That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it.
dj
--
frantheman
On 23 Mrz., 22:33, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let's hear some good quotes. I'd appreciate something from religious
> persons as a good contribution if it has a political flavor to it.
....
>
> I bet various Popes have had some controversial opinions and voiced them
> over the years.
Okay, Don, I haven't been able to verify this, but if my magpie-like
memory serves me correctly, Giulio de Giuliano de Medici, having been
elected Pope Clement VII in 1523 is reported to have said, "Now that
we are pope, let us enjoy it." Unfortunately, his political ineptness
led to the sack of Rome by the mostly Lutheran soldiers serving the
(Catholic) Emperor, Charles V. His subsequent dependence on Charles
forced him to refuse to dissolve the marriage between Charles' sister,
Catherine of Aragon and her husband, Henry VIII of England. The result
of THAT was the beginning of the English reformation.
Now there's a man who could have used political advisors with the
acumen of Ms. Palin ... like ... OMG! :-)
Francis
gabbydott
your island, tz. On the other hand you'd be my number one cast for the
concentration camp officer role. I haven't forgotten your laughter
when you put up the picture of the banned brother dave as a scapegoat
on the icon space here.
Chris Jenkins
gabbydott
in the drawer.
On 23 Mrz., 23:31, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, now, Gabs. One would think that you were begging for a chance to be
> moderated.
>
> > minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com<minds-eye%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Don Johnson
On Mar 23, 4:15 pm, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 March 2010 20:56, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I did have cow last night. Split a 16 oz. sirloin with my dad. No
> > drinks though.
>
> Don, have you ever been to a BBQ place near Austin called Salt Lick? I
> saw it on Man v Food the other night and it made me hungry. Hungry in
> the way only hunks of dead animal cooking over a pit can.
Nope. I've spent some time and money on 6th street but haven't been
to this BBQ joint. Texas has great BBQ. Some of the best is at
outdoor events grilled right at the site. Awesome flavors!
>
> > I don't like the way the country is going. Neither, incidentally, do
> > most Americans. I think if you based the red/blue map of the USA on
> > opinion today the entire country would be blood red. We have a short
> > attention span however and liberals don't change their spots over one
> > issue. We're stuck with the new bill and they'll figure it out and
> > still vote demo come Nov. Repubs will get a majority back but not a
> > super majority. That usually happens anyway during these 'tweener
> > elections.
>
> I don't think things will be that different, Don. The world won't end
> because of this bill, but hopefully it'll leave you broke enough to
> not go dragging our arses into any more wars.
No, it won't end. But this country has changed. We're on the road to
voting ourselves money. As for wars...
Iceland is looking vulnerable and juicy right about now. We could go
halfsies? ;-0
dj
>
> Ian
Don Johnson
• "Tonight, at a time when the pundits said it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of our politics. We pushed back on the undue influence of special interests."--Barack Obama, celebrating the House's passage of ObamaCare, March
B-b-b-but....
• "Gordon Witman of PICO, Richard Kirsch of Health Care for America Now, Robert Hall of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Richard Trumpka, head of the AFL-CIO, Dr. Willarda Edwards of the National (not American) Medical Association, Ari Matusiak of Young Invincibles Want Change."--from Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "guest list for this evening's historic vote," San Francisco Chronicle Web site, March 21
Is it possible our president doesn't understand what a special interest group is? Or, is he exhibiting his presidential prerogative to purvey false pretenses?
We report, you decide.
dj
ornamentalmind
blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy...
~Abraham Lincoln
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
~Abraham Lincoln
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and
lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
~Abraham Lincoln
A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when
single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.
~Benjamin Franklin
About the quote: Speaking to Benjamin Vaughan, 14 March 1785.
I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves
responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle
their differences without cutting throats...
~Benjamin Franklin
There never was a good war or a bad peace.
~Benjamin Franklin
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin
We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.
~Benjamin Harrison
On Mar 23, 2:05 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “…oh yes, and isn't her effortless command of the English language
> inspiring?…” - fran
>
> …as is her lack of tenacity when it comes to remaining in office!
>
> Oh, and for those enamored with sentence diagramming, be sure to read
> and look at:
> “Diagramming Sarah. Can Palin's sentences stand up to a grammarian?”http://www.slate.com/id/2201158/
>
> And from both sides of the Atlantic:
>
> “Sarah Palin: Every English teacher's worst nightmare”http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-eve.html
>
> and
>
> “Sarah Palin's political gibberish”http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/02/sarah....
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ornamentalmind
...for that matter, almost all of 'em apply! :-(
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
On Mar 23, 2:17 pm, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm telling you what you already know.
>
> She's referring to the process known as reconciliation. Basically only
> requiring a simple majority, 51%, rather then 60% to pass major legislation.
> While it's been done before by both sides of the aisle it has never been
> done for something this important. Other major forms of legislation to do
> with healthcare like social security and medicare and medicaid passed with
> bipartisan support. Not so this one. Add to this the intricacies of the
> Slaughter Rules and chaos reigns.
>
> This is really very huge and very risky politically for the current
> Congress. I think the Republican howling at the moon some politicians are
> doing is inappropriate and unnecessary. We should be focusing on dealing
> with what we have and stopping a further slide into Soviet style socialism.
>
> Here's a short description of how this came to be I've stolen from Taranto's
> Best Of The Web Today from last week. It's an interesting journey through
> manipulation that both appalls and fascinates me. While your average
> American sleeps through it all.
>
> *Democrats trying to force through ObamaCare over the will of the voters are
> frightening and creepy experience.*
>
> dj
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:46 PM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
vamadevananda
let the dynamic role play continue, preferably with a shine on the
context for keeping others here informed.
> > > minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com<minds-eye%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups .com>
Don Johnson
Here's another from Thomas Jefferson.
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of
his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or
whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to
violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee
to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by
it."
dj
Don Johnson
an opinion piece. So is the Taranto piece I quoted from. His
description of the process is accurate but his opinions on the effects
are just that.
dj
> > PostquotesMinority Leader John Boehner as saying.