USVI-On-Line

DELETED

Jorge - President
Bug- Vice President

DELETED

As long as we are talking about the constitution.

Referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson wrote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

The legal argument doesn't wash. If you remove the moral/religious argument against abortion, you have nothing left.

I wonder if the fervently prolife among us are against the Iraq war as well? Do you rail against your tax dollars being used to kill the innocent, or do you just view them as collateral damage? Or are you for the saving of innocent life only as long as its god fearing American life?

I would rather someone legislate against the killing of thousands of Iraqi citizens, including children, and over 4000 US soldiers, in an extremely expensive war --- which by the way my tax dollars are paying for --- and that both sides now acknowledge we entered into under false pretenses.

I'm the 1% undecided in the poll, but I've decided that we do need change. I think our next President needs to have shaved balls in order to tackle the tough problems of todays world.

My vote is going to Jorge! ....and I look forward to living out my retirement years in St John.

Peace,

Cid

flip-flop wrote:As long as we are talking about the constitution.

Referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson wrote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

The legal argument doesn't wash. If you remove the moral/religious argument against abortion, you have nothing left.

I wonder if the fervently prolife among us are against the Iraq war as well? Do you rail against your tax dollars being used to kill the innocent, or do you just view them as collateral damage? Or are you for the saving of innocent life only as long as its god fearing American life?

I would rather someone legislate against the killing of thousands of Iraqi citizens, including children, and over 4000 US soldiers, in an extremely expensive war --- which by the way my tax dollars are paying for --- and that both sides now acknowledge we entered into under false pretenses.

Amen to that!!!!

jorge has balls ? Couldn't tell.

flip-flop wrote:I wonder if the fervently prolife among us are against the Iraq war as well? Do you rail against your tax dollars being used to kill the innocent, or do you just view them as collateral damage? Or are you for the saving of innocent life only as long as its god fearing American life?

I would rather someone legislate against the killing of thousands of Iraqi citizens, including children, and over 4000 US soldiers, in an extremely expensive war --- which by the way my tax dollars are paying for --- and that both sides now acknowledge we entered into under false pretenses.

To go back and prosecute the pros/cons of the Iraq war is crazy. Every single one of your liberal Senators voted in favor. Since 2006, they have owned the House and Senate, and could've withdrawn funding with the stroke of a pen. So don't give me that useless bs. The fact is, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Dodd, Obama, etc do not have any clear convictions - other than to make us all equally miserable under some socialist "utopia". I would've respected them more had they chose to follow their "convictions" about this war and voted to withdraw funding. If you remember, the Republicans were so sick of the Dems talking about this, that about a year and a half ago they brought such a resolution to the Senate, and the cowards still didn't vote to defund. We haven't heard much about defunding since.

As to all this talk about "people"...It reminds me of Bill Clinton's query, "well, I suppose it depends on what the meaning if IS is...".

I do not believe the great Constitution ever defines the word people...Sound to me like it was meant in the plural, as in, "The Americans are a liberty craving people".

I find it incredible how people, when discussing political views, just can’t seem to help but imply they are right, another is wrong. They are smart, another is ignorant. They are just, another is immoral. Why do these qualifiers always have to be present? What you have isn't a better/worse, right/wrong, good/bad...you simply have individual differences. One could easily find support to justify his position or rip apart the other, regardless of which side he is on. Each person has a valid perspective, regardless of how much I agree or disagree with it personally. It is simply a reflection of his/her own perspective shaped by life experiences. If people didn’t constantly try to prove how much better their own perspective is than the guy next to them, maybe I wouldn’t think so many political discussions are so pointless.

And no, I’m not one of those people who doesn’t care and doesn’t have an opinion. Frankly, I have a very strong opinion, but I prefer to keep it to myself.

Carry on, if you must.

Ok< I was gonna stay quiet, but...
I think it quite screwed up that most of the pro-Bush war thinkers are the ones who protest paying taxes the most. How do you propose paying for this war? I think that we effectively have put in on Master Card, but leaving it for somebody else to pay for. Cheney and his toy George have made a fine mess for whoever comes next.

BTW...You libs are only pro-choice on this issue...

You do not want to allow me to choose:

What school to send my child to (vouchers)
What type of car I should be driving
Whether or not I wear my seatbelt
How I should invest my social security funds (privatization)
My right to carry a firearm (which, I choose not to, but the choice should remain)

And while I'm at it...The women's right's movement only supports women who agree with their political platform. They have all come out against Palin, totally ignoring the fact that she has a chance to ascend to the highest level of any woman in our history...

Similar to the NAACP...They alsmost killed Clarence Thomas (edit: not literally, professionally) because he is a conservative. If you don't share their ideologic positions, well then the fact that you're AA doesn't matter. Not to mention that he ascended to his position without one ounce of help from Affirmative Action.

DELETED

soxfan22 wrote: To go back and prosecute the pros/cons of the Iraq war is crazy.

It is not my intent to rehash if we should or should not have gone to war, we are there. Though we now know that the intelligence our legislators used to make that decision was seriously flawed.

Still, that train has left the station. What matters to me is the direction we go from here.

My question is one of true curiosity. I am truly curious if the rights of the born are as important as the rights of the unborn? And if not, why not? I want to know how that cognitive dissonance is relieved if it exists. In what cases is the loss of innocent life ok?

I am not only pro-choice on this issue. I am, as I have stated, hands off and in favor of leaving decisions in the hands of the individual whenever possible. I am 100% ok keeping my hands off your 2nd amendment rights if you will keep yours off my 1st amendment ones.

Somehow I think my question will remain unanswered because valuing this life over that life is by definition inconsistent when your basic premise is that life is sacred.

JT wrote:Ok< I was gonna stay quiet, but...
I think it quite screwed up that most of the pro-Bush war thinkers are the ones who protest paying taxes the most. How do you propose paying for this war? I think that we effectively have put in on Master Card, but leaving it for somebody else to pay for. Cheney and his toy George have made a fine mess for whoever comes next.

First, I am not "Pro-War". I just happen to think that we have the right and the responsibility to protect ourselves.

Second...History has shown that lowering taxes has ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, increased revenues to the federal government.

Read:

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

DELETED