Anyone else ready to jump on the boat to Canada?


#1

Way I see it we can chose to be punched in the face by the Mussolini Trump or get stabbed in the back by the criminal and zero transparency Hillary.


#2

I guess the boat would be on a trailer?

And no, Canada already criminalizes speech they don’t want to consider and has already destroyed the Market Forces in their health care industry; my problems with Trump and Clinton are most certainly NOT a fear that they will tank us too slowly so Canada would not be a desired destination.


#3

Anyone else ready to jump on the boat to Canada?
.
No…I’ve heard to many bad things about their healthcare. (wink).


#4

I got a personal letter from the POTUS telling me that my friends and neighbors needed me to go to Vietnam and save the world. Well turns out I was not alone in getting that letter and as a bunch of us collaborated over some beer (in spite of being to young to drink) several said they were going to Canada, others had different plans and vowed to get back together the following Fri to sort this out:

Everyone spoke, one guy getting into the Navy Reserve in spite of having to drive 250+ miles to make a weekend drill, other were working on getting into the Nat Guard etc. When it came my time to tell, I said I had looked on a map where Vietnam was and where Canada was and I said given the option between eyeball deep in snow or knee deep in a warm rice paddy I was opting for Vietnam. I guess if push comes to shove I may do Vietnam again, at least I know my way around and I can deal with the heat…

YES, this is a true story.


#5

I said I had looked on a map where Vietnam was and where Canada was
.
I remember that time period. I had 2 worries about going. 1. I honestly figured that our politicians would piss away our lives while arguing over the shape of the table they were going to sit at (& anything else they could play politician with). 2. Snakes. It wouldn’t have bothered me that much to get shot at but the thought of walking around in the jungle with all of those snakes just scared me to death. I’ve always had a deep fear of them. Probably because I’ve had 4 or 5 really close calls in my youth.


#6

I only saw one snake, forgot which one, but it was one of the most deadly over there. Yea I remeber the shape of the table discussion that lasted about a year or so, glad I was gone…


#7

I received my letter back in 65 and my thoughts at the time were that I saw some trying to avoid service with going to Canada and others going into the National Guard. I think getting married could keep one out and going to college. I figured with my disability I would never get accepted. I and a lot of others took a bus to Chicago and had my physical and I told the doctor what my problem was although I suspect that he did not understand and later I received a 1Y classification and eventually I was classified as 4F when I turned 26 and it was said because of allergies.

Recently I spent several days in the hospital and told a doctor my disability and he said in 10 years practice he had never heard of it. According to one website there are only 7000 confirmed cases in the world with my problem.

Hypohidrosis (Absent Sweating)


#8

Well since you are still here after eight years of a ruling tyrant,
I can only assume that you agree with what has happened to the country under his boot or maybe … You need “boat” fare?

I’m short on cash but I’ll be happy to write you a check!


#9

I haven’t been here long but I have noticed something. First I’ll point out the obvious & that is that any political stance has a lot of facets to it. For instance I’m very conservative on any issue involving money, size of government, & that sort of thing. As a matter of fact I’m in general more conservative in that area than most that call themselves conservatives. Personal rights, again I’m way out on the fringe right. But when it comes to moral standards I’m more left leaning NOT because I believe in what the left dishes out. It’s for 2 reasons. 1. I believe in the “All men are created equal” statement totally 100%. 2. The other reason is that I don’t believe that it’s the governments job to police morals nor do I think they can police morals. I believe that’s a slippery slope legally because if they can police someone else’s morals then they can police everyone’s & I for one don’t want them in my bedroom. Many would look at my views as me being for the left but I view them as being totally in line with a very conservative way of looking at it.
.
Now here’s my point about the facets. Only a carbon copy of yourself is going to agree on every single issue exactly the same way you do. We are all going to differ somewhat on one or more of the complicated points that make up the whole “conservative agenda”. So when we disagree why not “discuss” the differences & maybe learn a new way of looking at an issue or even just agree to disagree? Seems to me that either path is more constructive than being insulting. Just my thoughts.


#10

Tex, we think a lot alike. But I see your view on individual rights as far right, NOT far left.

Its like my views on marriage, I can solve ALL marriage issues today, get the GOVT the hell out completely. You choice of your mate is YOUR choice, not the Govts. If you want to marry your bass boat, I really do not care and most of all its none of my damn business. Gay marriage, I don’t care, none of my business.


#11

Exactly & well said 17Oaks & those are my feelings. I just don’t care about a lot of things that don’t affect me. The thing that I find funny is that those that want to force their beliefs on others are the one’s that would squeal the loudest if others try to force their beliefs on them. The whole point of the U.S. is that we are free to believe whatever we want to. If we take that away, really what do we have left? Just another country where the government rules & the people obey.


#12

Societies cannot function without laws and ALL laws are based on that society’s agreed-upon sense of what’s morally acceptable and what’s immoral. There were societies in New Guinea, for example, that believed cannibalism was “moral.” Almost NO other society agreed. The US was established as a Christian society. Every major world religion disapproves of homosexuality in its writings and tenets. While our Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion–within reasonable limitations–it does NOT guarantee freedom FROM religion. You are free to reject the agreed-upon societal moral sense. You are NOT free to impose YOUR rejection on everyone else–or, for that matter, to flaunt your rejection of moral norms.


#13

Again I’ll agree to disagree.


#14

Your statements are way too broad and very short sighted.
You fail to give us a solution on how we can exist as a free and safe society if not for some type of governmental policing?

Without some type of government control … we have anarchy.

(To me, it is obvious that Not All Men are created Morally equal.)

If the government cannot police morality then we will have no laws … since a majority of our laws are based on morality!

  1. Murder Immoral
  2. Theft Immoral
  3. Rape Immoral

(Just a few Immoral acts which the government must police if we wish to live within a civil society.)

As I asked, What would your solution be?

Here are some thoughts on the subject:

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who … will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man". - Samuel Adams

Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports… And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” - George Washington

I will close with this, a quote by the man that many believe to be … The Father of Liberalism

A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law. - John Locke


#15

As I asked, What would your solution be?
.
silliessis I guess that you missed the part about that post being my thoughts or feelings on the subject. Thoughts or feeling do not require solutions nor do most people here (when expressing theirs) post solutions on every subject. I’m thinking that my post may have gotten you so enraged that you also didn’t read the part below about attacking people just because you disagree with them.

**Now here’s my point about the facets. Only a carbon copy of yourself is going to agree on every single issue exactly the same way you do. We are all going to differ somewhat on one or more of the complicated points that make up the whole “conservative agenda”. So when we disagree why not “discuss” the differences & maybe learn a new way of looking at an issue or even just agree to disagree? Seems to me that either path is more constructive than being insulting. Just my thoughts. **
.
But as far as solutions go how about this. Those that hate gays should pretend just for a little while that Gays are in charge & they have passed a law saying that you MUST marry a same sex partner. How would you feel about it? Would you feel that you were being treated fairly (after all everyone would be required to do the same thing)? If you say to yourself, yes that would be fine with me, then OK. But if you (even for a second) say that’s unfair then you would know how gays feel.
.
Lastly I would say that there are 2 different things here. The bible & the law. Most of the law came from a new copy of the bible (the old copy was too strict & nobody could live under those rules so a new one was adapted) but not all of them. And so they aren’t totally compatible. An eye for an eye will get you put to death (for example). Oh & of course the bible is subject to interpretation. And by interpretation I mean that you can justify just about any action you want to take. I like the part about God being the final judge but that’s just me. But my point is that if you follow the bible exactly you can indeed end up breaking the law (depending on what you want to follow exactly & of course what interpretation you choose to put on it) because the 2 are not the same.

Oh & we are never going to agree on this subject so why not agree to not agree?


#16

[quote=silliessis]If the government cannot police morality then we will have no laws … since a majority of our laws are based on morality!

  1. Murder Immoral
  2. Theft Immoral
  3. Rape Immoral

(Just a few Immoral acts which the government must police if we wish to live within a civil society.)

As I asked, What would your solution be?[/quote]Simple: You cannot take actions that harm another person and violate their ability to operate freely. All three handled. No religious morals involved.

Next?

[quote=Tex]I just don’t care about a lot of things that don’t affect me. The thing that I find funny is that those that want to force their beliefs on others are the one’s that would squeal the loudest if others try to force their beliefs on them. The whole point of the U.S. is that we are free to believe whatever we want to. If we take that away, really what do we have left? Just another country where the government rules & the people obey.[/quote]Many people like to control other people. They have no confidence in their own rightness, so they seek to beat others into submission. Their own beliefs as so shaky that any other opinion is a threat to their entire character. They must be constantly validated by a chorus of lemmings, and anyone who isn’t a fellow lemming, is an infidel.

Being able to accept other people have different views requires a maturity and confidence that most people never obtain. And being able to believe that different things may be right for one person and not another, requires a world perspective that isn’t self-centered(also uncommon). What’s best for one person may even be bad for most people. But not for that person. I’m glad you have that perspective. Your life is a lot less stressful than those who think they should be able to control the world as its own little god.


#17

No you won’t.


#18

A man with means marries a girl from a poor family, they have 3 kids in 5 years and build a nice home to live in; then the man decides that his bride is not what he wants anymore so he kicks her out without the kids or anything but the clothes she is wearing and he moves a new girl in to take her place.

The man changes all the locks and tells the men who man the gates to his house that the previous wife is not allowed on the property for any reason, he also refuses to take her phone calls beyond leaving the message that she is not welcome and she will not be a part of her kids life in the future; the man also intimates that great harm could come to her and her family if she does not agree to accept these terms and get lost.

You could easily reverse the story and have the woman be of great wealth and influence and the husband be of common station, the point is that one spouse is of stronger influence and has the means to enforce their will upon the other while the “other” has no means by which to combat the wealthy spouse.

In a society where "The Government is OUT OF MARRIAGE" and decides to have NO LAWS defining what a marriage is, who can enter such a contract, what terms will recognized as valid for the contract, what terms must be met to void the contract and what Rights the individuals have to their children and common property within the contract and in the case of the contract being cancelled; what exactly can the weak spouse do to stop the stronger spouse from imposing their will as harshly as they choose?

That is how drug dealers operate, the stronger ones dominate the weaker ones and the weaker ones take whatever they are allowed to keep regardless if any former “agreements” declared that they would get more, the government does not recognize recreational street drug dealers as anything but criminals so the only solution that anyone in that trade has after being screwed is to take it or resort to violence.

Before Statehood those who migrated West lived in such communities, men and women married but there was no recourse for those who were traded in by their spouse for a newer model, there was no Government parameters that defined the Marriage Contract and provided protection for the participants; in other words “Rights” belonged only to those with money and influence and everybody else took the scraps or starting killing their oppressors.

I doubt anybody would mind if anyone “Married their Bass Boat” because Bass Boats have no claim to Property and they do not produce offspring (other than debt); “Getting the Government out of Marriage” is not a “solution” it is creating a scenario where Rights only exist for the powerful.


#19

First, not all crimes are moral based and are crimes because of the harm that they can (or will) cause.

I submit that there is no such thing as a ‘victimless crime’.

Well, I guess that there is one:

A guy held up a local market one evening.

He gave the clerk a fifty for cigarettes.
She took the fifty and went to the stock
room to try and find the right brand.

The guy took the cash drawer and ran off.

It was later disclosed that the cash drawer
only contained $30.

That has to be classified as a victimless
crime.


#20

OH GEE.

Now that I think about it … the robber made himself a victim!:angry: