|
We need only read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution to understand why a government is needed: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." We need government to keep the territory held together (more perfect union). We need government to protect us from law breakers (establish justice). We need government to keep our day-to-day lives stable and safe (domestic tranquility). We need government to protect us from foreign invasions (provide for the common defense). We need government to help the exchange of money, goods, and trade with other countries (promote the general welfare). The purpose of a government is to provide for the safety and protection of the citizens. It protects the nation from foreign and domestic enemies and violence, provides services like post office, fire protection, state and local police, armed forces, and regulates things like interstate commerce and trade with other nations. A government also has the obligation to protect the rights of the citizens, though not all governments do that. A national government must protect the rights of citizens and of states' rights. The government's functions are to provide social order, security, public services, and economic systems for the citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with helping people when they need it. But those that scam the system should be thrown off for life and do some jail time - that's just out and out theft. food stamps should be used only for food - as is what they were intended for, not liquor, not lottery tickets, not for nude bars... food only.... Welfare should be a safety net, not a life time entitlement.
|
|
|
|
Recently we have seen a lot of government failures and scandals.
What is your opinion, do we need the government or not?
Let's see....what a government is?A group of people that governs a community or unit. It sets and administers public policy and exercises executive, political and sovereign power through customs, institutions, and laws within a state....so a group of people...people like you and me ....who got corrupt by the power and money ....so do we need them? |
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected on the Libyan Presidents "belief" of pre-planning, but note that the leader of the attack states that it was not pre-planned but seen as an opportunity when the protest over the movie was taking place.
But, like Republicans, I have no doubt the President of Libya knew more about the attack than the guy leading the attack, right?
Seriously, just how will you defend the indefensible when the attackers say the movie was part of the events of the day?
What kind of insanity claims republicans know more than the guys leading the attack?
|
|
|
|
It makes no sense in the administration's narrative of pushing that it wasn't a pre-planned attack (even though we now know they knew otherwise) that the perp now suddenly claims that the attack was because of the video, even though he didn't mention the video when the New York Times interviewed him over frappes. lol. Or at least, it makes no sense to anyone but those of you invested in believing that the administration wasn't twisting the evidence to suit themselves. You realize that we now know that these terrorists were talking to each other on our men's cell phones and we were listening in the night of the attacks as they called their superiors, and you still have no problem with them lying to the American people for weeks saying that they really had no evidence that it was a pre-planned, organized attack? I don't really know what I can say to you that will make you pull your head out of your collective asses, but here's a timeline for your review: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/I followed your link to factcheck and nothing in the timeline is a smoking gun, as you put it. It shows the confusion of interviews with eye witnesses, data collected by investigators, the administration's reluctance to state categorically that it was one thing or another. Why would they jump to a conclusion that it was pre-planned, when that wasn't know for sure? As far as those who attacked and killed Americans that night talking on their phones to their "superiors", it just means that the used the dead people's phones because they were convenient and available. How does that prove it was pre-planned? I really don't care what makes sense to you , because a lot of perfectly logical things don't make sense to CONs, so why should this be any different. Answer this: How can our officials have told us for weeks that there was no evidence of a pre-planned terrorist attack the night of the 9/11 anniversary as they were listening to those very terrorists communicate with their terrorist superiors from their terrorist organization on our men cell phones as it happened? Yes, suddenly I suppose there were indeed "convenient and available" cell phones, as you put it, on which to contact the superiors in the organized attack since they had likely just taken their cell phones off their bodies. And the link shows the number of times, days and weeks after, which this administration refused to admit what they knew that it was. You realize that the president of Libya was telling us it was obviously a pre-planned terror attack? And that the state department was telling Libya which organization it was who carried it out as they were telling us it was a spontaneous protest over a video, right? And that there was no spontaneous protest, or any protest at all at that location? The administration was trying to cover their asses with the "spontaneous and unexpected" attack story. They got caught with their pants down on the anniversary of 9/11 at a post that should have had more security just days after the company line was that terrorists were on the run. They needed everyone to believe this just could not have been foreseen, and if it could be blamed on a video rather than poor choices by our state department and the rest of the administration, well, even better. And the link shows the number of times, days and weeks after, which this administration refused to admit what they knew that it was. And yet, here we are with the leader of the attack saying the video created the initial response and the attack followed. So the administration did say this, and it turns out to be absolutely correct. What is false is the right wing insistence that the video was not a factor...when the NY Times investigation discovered exactly the opposite. You realize that the president of Libya was telling us it was obviously a pre-planned terror attack? No, I do not realize that because it is not the truth. He said it was a terrroist attack, which it was, surrounded by a mob protesting a video. He made NO claim of pre-planning and there is no evidence of pre-planning. And that the state department was telling Libya which organization it was who carried it out as they were telling us it was a spontaneous protest over a video, right? And that there was no spontaneous protest, or any protest at all at that location? You are 100% wrong here. Both the NY Times investigation and the captured terrorist say there was a protest at Benghazi. The administration was trying to cover their asses with the "spontaneous and unexpected" attack story. This is simply a lie, and now you know better. retract your lie in the face of the facts. They got caught with their pants down on the anniversary of 9/11 at a post that should have had more security Yes, absolutely...as anyone knows AFTER the attack. just days after the company line was that terrorists were on the run. The facts are most of the Al Quada leadership, including Bin Laden were killed. No one made any claim that terrorism was ended. That was a conservative lie. They needed everyone to believe this just could not have been forseen, and if it could be blamed on a video rather than poor choices by our state department and the rest of the administration, well, even better. I realize this is all pointless as you're quite dug in and invested in your position.Given the factual evidence it is you who are invested in a false position. |
|
|
|
Hey, good questions - if meant seriously. Of course, you all missed the point of the OP (can't say I am surprised), but hey, this could be a good discussion, if you are willing to think outside of your boxes.
I doubt you are serious though - at least several of those questions have been dealt with by scholars - but whether due to fear or what not, you are not aware of them.
No, they haven't.AiG and ICR do not employ scholars. Yes they have, and yes they do. That is extremely dishonest way to skirt the issue, driver. Not exactly a shocker ..... I have not skirted any issue.It's no secret that the sources on the topic are nothing but religious propaganda sites that post nothing but 100% grade A bullshit. There is not an ounce of truth in ANYTHING posted by AiG and ICR. |
|
|
|
Hey, good questions - if meant seriously. Of course, you all missed the point of the OP (can't say I am surprised), but hey, this could be a good discussion, if you are willing to think outside of your boxes.
I doubt you are serious though - at least several of those questions have been dealt with by scholars - but whether due to fear or what not, you are not aware of them.
No, they haven't.AiG and ICR do not employ scholars. |
|
|
|
It makes no sense in the administration's narrative of pushing that it wasn't a pre-planned attack (even though we now know they knew otherwise) that the perp now suddenly claims that the attack was because of the video, even though he didn't mention the video when the New York Times interviewed him over frappes. lol. Or at least, it makes no sense to anyone but those of you invested in believing that the administration wasn't twisting the evidence to suit themselves. You realize that we now know that these terrorists were talking to each other on our men's cell phones and we were listening in the night of the attacks as they called their superiors, and you still have no problem with them lying to the American people for weeks saying that they really had no evidence that it was a pre-planned, organized attack? I don't really know what I can say to you that will make you pull your head out of your collective asses, but here's a timeline for your review: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/I followed your link to factcheck and nothing in the timeline is a smoking gun, as you put it. It shows the confusion of interviews with eye witnesses, data collected by investigators, the administration's reluctance to state categorically that it was one thing or another. Why would they jump to a conclusion that it was pre-planned, when that wasn't know for sure? As far as those who attacked and killed Americans that night talking on their phones to their "superiors", it just means that the used the dead people's phones because they were convenient and available. How does that prove it was pre-planned? I really don't care what makes sense to you , because a lot of perfectly logical things don't make sense to CONs, so why should this be any different. |
|
|
|
Don't blame the book,blame the people who interprets it,they are crazy and take to extreme what they think that Quran says .
lol your so wrong : The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam. |
|
|
|
|
Don't blame the book,blame the people who interprets it,they are crazy and take to extreme what they think that Quran says .
|
|
|
|
Usually folks' idea of Noah's ark are based on children's Sunday school lessons, etc. The following students were tasked with putting one aspect to the test based on the actual biblical account - and were surprised by the results. http://www.icr.org/article/8039/Advanced physics students at Leicester University were tasked with determining if the Biblical dimensions of Noah's ark—assuming it was properly constructed—could have supported the mass of 70,000 animals They didn't investigate whether it was feasible to construct the ark or whether the ark could have held up to the open ocean. All they assessed was whether the size was sufficient to hold the mass of animals (forget the food and water). In other words, if I had a paper bowl that was 6 feet long, 3 feet wide and 3 feet high, I could put it in water and given its volume, it would hold you and your family (with no food and water) afloat on the ocean....right? There are problems with this 'scientific assessment" . 1) how did the animals get to the ark 2) where do they keep the food and water (2nd ark?) 3) where is the steel because wood isn't strong enough to support the mass, length and size. |
|
|
|
|
Just a few general questions here:
First, should we not all first and foremost agree that capturing this guy is good news?
Second, trial and conviction is perfect. We have over 200 such terrorist convictions under US law. Seven under military tribunal.
Third, those citing the NY Times investigation are exactly the same people for denounced the NY Times investigation for the conclusions it did make. And now they are here to cite the Times for what it did not conclude. Now that is funny.
Fourth, if the guy who led the terrorist attack claims it all started with a protest against the movie, who here thinks they know more than he did about that night?
Fifth, if it all did begin as a protest against the movie, so what? The first Intel reports given by Rice suggested that and that is good, it means they were right and the movie was a factor.
Sixth, there appears to be no al Qaeda connection here, offsetting a right wing claim that the intent was to coverup Al Qadea's continued existance.
Now if what the guy said is confirmed, then everything the administraiton said is absolutely true, largely the NY Times conclusion of their investigation.
So what? Good news, your government got it right.
|
|
|
|
This is a primary example of how the left deals with the ugly truth, they simply ban people from viewing it. Its also a primary example of how the left views the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, they are limited to and by liberals. You would think hillary would talk to the school and demand her records be open to all but I sure as hell won't bet money on that. hillary doesn't want the ugly truth aired any more than this fool does. But hey, you lefties can be proud of this too since its a slap in the face to freedom and honesty. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/20/clinton-donor-bans-free-beacon-from-university-arkansas-archives/Clinton donor bans Free Beacon from University of Arkansas archives
A Hillary Clinton donor who serves as dean of the University of Arkansas libraries has banned the Washington Free Beacon from the school’s special collections archives, after the news outlet published revealing stories about Hillary Clinton based on documents available at the university library.
The ban came days after the Free Beacon ran a story about Clinton’s 1975 defense of a child rapist that drew from audio recordings available at the University of Arkansas library’s special collections archives.
However, the ban was not mentioned in a June 16 email to this reporter from Steve Voorhies, manager of media relations at the university.
“Congratulations on another fine mining expedition into the University of Arkansas Libraries archives,” Voorhies wrote.
“I appreciate you raising the profile of the University of Arkansas Libraries special collections,” Voorhies concluded his email, while asking for advanced notice prior to future stories.
“I expect there is more you will find in coming months,” he said.
Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen informed editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti in a June 17 letter that the library had “officially suspended” the Free Beacon‘s research privileges.
The Free Beacon published the Hillary Papers, drawn from the archive of the late Clinton confidante Diane Blair, in February. Those papers are also housed in the special collections at the University of Arkansas.
“I am writing you to direct you and the Washington Beacon Press to cease and desist your ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas with regard to your unauthorized publication of audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection,” wrote Allen. |
|
|
|
That is actually a very good theory. Seems like people are getting more and more suspicious of China. But I think that suspicion is justified as China as a nation has never been known to be a philanthropic country.
All of its actions seems to have a motive behind it. Like how it played the conflict between US and Russia to make profit from lower natural gas prices from Russia.
Just look at how China continually pollute the environment and resist all attempts by other nations to get it to care more about their impact on the environment. One really cannot say that they care much for the welfare their citizens at all!
The Malaysian government hasn't taken their obligation too seriously till now. They've come under fire from everyone, including China. Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia can't afford to carry on the search anyway. |
|
|
|
An alleged ringleader of the September 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, who is now in U.S. custody, reportedly told other Libyans during the attack that he was responding to an anti-Islam video that had been published on YouTube, demolishing a prominent right-wing media attack. Conservatives in the media have fixated on Obama administration statements shortly after the attacks suggesting that the video had been a motive for the attackers. Conservatives have alleged that these statements were part of a deliberate effort to deceive the American people about the cause of the terror attacks in order to bolster President Obama's re-election campaign. Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured Sunday by U.S. military and law enforcement in response to an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attacks. Abu Khattala told Libyans the night of the attack "that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video," according to The New York Times. From the Times: What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video. An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him. In an interview days after the attack, he pointedly declined to say whether he believed an offense such as the anti-Islamic video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. "From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad," he said. The Times article is consistent with media reports from the scene of the attack that suggested the anti-Islam video had been a motive for at least some of the attackers. That video triggered anti-American protests across the Muslim world. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/17/captured-alleged-benghazi-ringleader-was-report/199771http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-captured-benghazi-suspect-in-secret-raid/2014/06/17/7ef8746e-f5cf-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?hpid=z1 |
|
|
|
No basic to say that government agencies have been performed better. Also this mission is not for free, so why would the private contractors perform it worse then?
Only doubt risen in my mind is: why is Australia so enthusiastic in this case while other nations do not pay appropriate attention, even Malaysia? Look at the map, Australia is the least concerned nation among those of which territories MH370 might fall down in. Is it worth for Australia to spend that much money searching this airplane?
Hmmmm. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the reaction and enthusiasm of other nations to join the search would be the threat of terrorism. Countries are concerned about their national security especially US which has been through 9/11 before because of the possibility that MH370 has been hijacked and the plane is being hidden somewhere for nefarious purposes in the future can't be dismissed. However, after the largest search in world history by the coalition of military force from multiple nations failed to turn up any results, no doubt a lot of countries have secretly placed their military on high alert... |
|
|
|
I dont like taking vaccines I get even more sick with it then without it. Makes the flu 10 times more powerful then you catching it naturally.
If you choose not to vaccinate your child that’s your prerogative, but do me a favor and stay away from me and my family. These diseases are horrible and PREVENTABLE. All drugs have the possibility of side effects but I’d much rather take that gamble than have my kid die or end up permanently impaired because I don’t believe in modern medicine. |
|
|
|
|
Crimea is done; over. When/if he starts seriously encroaching on Ukraine the shit's going to hit the fan, and will require some serious decision-making from the west.
|
|
|
|
|
The whole of Europe and the west needs to apply sanctions that will really hurt this sob and his minions. Putin is trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union, piece by piece, with him installed as grand poobah for life.
Intervene militarily and it will be a bloodbath, all sides, including nuclear war with every crazy unstable country that has nukes...everyone will be drawn in, including Iran, Israel, and the rest of the ME. Sanctions work if they're done right; look at S. Africa and the demise of apartheid. That took unity from the rest of the world, isolating and scorning them. They got hit in the pocketbook and couldn't survive it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
