# R.E. "What should we really do?"



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

New guy to the forum fellas, pardon my impudence, but I'd like to interject a thought here.

Let's go big picture guys, the question was, what do we do about the mess in Iraq? I say, use your vote wisely. I'm going to defend myself before I go any further. I voted for "W" the first time around, and last Sunday the NRA called, and I gave them $150.00. No, I'm not liberal, no I don't vote Democrat.

What I am, is very sensitive to the abuse of Federal power. Don't kid yourselves, "W" has done one heck of a lot wrong for conservative folks like ourseves, (I assume,) by setting precedent. Faith based initiatives? Marginal at best by my standards, but let me ask you what a liberal executive could use that precedent for? Remember the National Endowment for the Arts, where we the tax payer were paying for porn?Enemy Combatant? Your kidding right? Does anybody really believe President Hillary Clinton doesn't think of every assault weapon owning citizen as such? And my favorite, Preemptive war. Maybe President Chuck Shumer, or President Barbara Boxer would like to go to war with another third world country over gay rights, animal rights, shoot, who knows what?A liberal President will have all of us in their sights fellas, don't you believe otherwise.

So, "What should we really do?" Do not elect another George Bush, instead, elect an executive, or senator, or other legislator that will act within their clearly defined constitutional powers, and keep us from ever asking these questions. Ok, at least not so many of them.

Ok guys, what do you think about that?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It sound reasonable to me. I think you put things into good perspective. You may have bought into the media thing about faith based initiatives. I think it is exaggerated by the media. I think a president should be allowed to express his faith, and I am not convinced W makes as many decisions this way as many would like us to believe. It's a ploy so they can cry separation of church and state. Other than that I think your right on the money.

I like the liberal environmental view, although I don't think the conservatives are as far off target environmentally as the media portrays.

Your right on about firearms and the liberals. Many liberals are pro gun, but the radical left controls the party. The democrats will suffer in future elections because of this.

Illegal aliens is a topical subject also, and the liberals would like to let more in because they will vote for more welfare programs. It is as if they want to import votes from across the boarder illegally. It isn't from the goodness of their heart they want them here. They want them here simply as a political tactical move.

Lady Bird Johnson got the endowment for the arts going. Your absolutely right, a crucifix in a quart of urine is not art. A fellow with a ten foot whip with the handle stuck where the sun don't shine posing nude isn't art either. I would like to see these guys survive on their skills. They have none.

Maybe if we beat their heads together (radical liberal and radical conservative) we could get a hybrid with good environmental views, good defense ideas, that follows all the constitution, not just the parts that promote their agenda.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

I'd like to see each branch of govt. exercise their power to the legal limit. When the Executive branch gets carried away, the Legislative can withhold funding. When the Legislative branch abuses the Constitution with un constitutional laws, the Judicial can rule appropriately. In our history, we've seen a much stronger legislature, with a weaker executive, (Republican or Jeffersonian, as opposed to Federalist or Madisonian). I believe this allows a much stronger "people vote," Instead of the watered down monarchy we've lived with in each presidency back to and including the Nixon administration.

States rights? What the heck is that? No drilling for oil in ANWR isn't going to do a darn thing to reduce our nations dependency on foreign oil, but no, it's not going to hurt the Arctic environment, (I know, I've been there!) So if Alaska wants to drill why shouldn't they? Oh yeah, ANWR is federal land in the state of Alaska. Come again? Why is the federal holding so large in any of our states? I dunno

Speak loudly fellers!


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Arctic, I agree with much of what you are saying. I would say, though, that I'd rather have another George Bush than a Hillary any day of the week. What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that whoever runs on the republican side has got to be electable. If an extreme right wing conservative runs.... and I'm not sure there is one out there who will, can he, or she, get elected? I don't know... it would have to be someone with charisma leaking out of their ears who could appeal to the moderate crowd. I just don't see it. A George Bush-like candidate, who is not afraid to stand up for what he thinks is right is not a bad compromise in my opinion. It is certainly better than the alternative.....


----------



## DeerScarer (Jul 23, 2005)

...


> States rights? What the heck is that? No drilling for oil in ANWR isn't going to do a darn thing to reduce our nations dependency on foreign oil, but no, it's not going to hurt the Arctic environment, (I know, I've been there!) So if Alaska wants to drill why shouldn't they? Oh yeah, ANWR is federal land in the state of Alaska. Come again? Why is the federal holding so large in any of our states? I dunno
> 
> Speak loudly fellers!


I agree with much of what everyone here has said so far. I am quite concerened about the liberty-limiting legislation and psuedo-legislation called executive orders that have come out of Washington in the past 10-15 years since I've been really watching. - Very pleased they let the assault weapons ban expire, tho  - Yes, even tho I voted for him both times, I also expect the Dems will use against us what the Reps have done during the "W" Bush admin.

However, Artic's above statement on States rights, as right on as it was, could have been even more right on. Specifically, the ANWR, if it has as much oil as even the environmentalists say it does, could produce up to 5% of our present total daily oil consumption. (It's about 1/2 of what Prudhoe Bay turned out to be, which is d**n huge, 2 million barrels per day average over last 25 years!) That would take a big bite out of our dependency on foreign oil. So, yes, for all the reasons Arctic Plainsman brings up, plus the extra million barrels per day of domestic production (currently we produce only 9 million per day of the 22 million we consume), I say DRILL! :sniper:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> No drilling for oil in ANWR isn't going to do a darn thing to reduce our nations dependency on foreign oil


I guess everyone was asleep when it happened or it was such a blow that the media simply didn't want to talk about it but, both houses approved a $2.57 trillion budget resolution April 28 that allows oil drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic National. It started when the Senate put a refuge drilling provision in next year's budget, depriving opponents of the chance to use a filibuster to try to block it. We are going to drill in ANWR.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

arctic plainsman said:


> drilling for oil in ANWR


Now it is possible I'm off base here, but as I recall my History...

I believe it might have been back when Theodore Roosevelt was President "We/USA" bought Alaska, and the reason we bought it was because of it's "Natural Resource" value.

If I am correct here then isn't it interesting how our values change. Its hard to believe that would have ever been much of a debate to begin with.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I think this fits in here :eyeroll:

THIS WILL OPEN YOUR EYES.

By Paul Harvey -

Conveniently Forgotten Facts Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers
decided that a fellow black panther named...Alex Rackley needed to
die. Rackley was suspected of disloyalty. He was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him. When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member, Warren Kimbo took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later found floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven, Conn.
Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what happened to

these Black Panthers. In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was still in jail. The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed
to get a scholarship to Harvard and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an assistant dean at an Eastern Connecticut State College. Isn't that something? As a '60s radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head and a few years later, in the same state, you can become an assistant college dean! Only in America! 
Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water for Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a California School Board. 
How in the world do you think these killers got off so easy? Maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense of the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during their trial. One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a California School Board. He is now head of 
the US Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, appointed by none > other than Bill Clinton.
O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? Is this other notable Panther defender now a school board member? Is this other Panther apologist now an assistant college dean? No, neither! The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at the time. She is now known as The "smartest woman in the world." She is none other than the Democratic senator from the State of New York----our former First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And now, as Paul Harvey said; You know "the rest of the story". 
Pass this on! This deserves the widest possible press. Also remember it, if and when she runs for President!

uke:


----------

