Posted 5 months, 3 days ago in 
Loading ...
Congress is wrongly forcing our nation toward socialism — a nicer word than “communism” — but the result will be the same. A ruling class will brutally ensure that the rest of the people will be unable to defend themselves — a total lack of freedom.
Our founding fathers gave us a republic and challenged us to see if we could keep it.
Karl Marx believed one generation of professors would make us become anti-God Marxists. He was wrong. So far the deception has covered a few generations, but it’s close!
The war in Iraq has provided a new freedom there — and has helped to prevent more 9/11 type terrorist attacks on our land.
MARJORIE R. TAYLOR
Hotchkiss
43 Responses to “We must protect our republic”
Posted June 20th, 2008 at 4:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
it’s not only congress, marjorie…unfortunately, due to much political propagandizing in our public schools, kids are growing up leaning further to the left than at any other time…it’s only going to get worse, as these kids grow up to be voters, and will vote their way into a solidly social usa
Posted June 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
the first thing we must do as citizen’s to regain control of our country is to vote against incumbents, if we do this for the next 5 general elections we will turn over the members of congress and change the character of this nation for the better
Posted June 20th, 2008 at 5:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Taylor: “and has helped to prevent more 9/11 type terrorist attacks on our land.”
There is not a shred of evidence that is true.
Hitek: “it’s not only congress, marjorie…unfortunately, due to much political propagandizing in our public schools, kids are growing up leaning further to the left than at any other time…”
Well Hitek, we have disagreed on this point before. All I want to say now is: Have you ever tried to get your high school or college kid to change his/her mind on fundamental beliefs? Kindergartners, yes, teenagers, rarely, twenty year olds and above almost never. (at least in my experience).
Posted June 20th, 2008 at 5:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Marjorie,
Sure you’re right. But what you should be asking yourself is who is doing it to us right here, right now. Educate yourself as to who are the players in GJ, and where you are too. We used to have a guy? on this forum. He posted under the name onevoice, and he gave a lot of us a wake up call. Socialism is alive and well and resides in Mesa County, and all over the western slope. As Americans we don’t have to stand tall, but we do have to stand.
Posted June 20th, 2008 at 5:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Timby: “the first thing we must do as citizen’s to regain control of our country is to vote against incumbents, if we do this for the next 5 general elections we will turn over the members of congress and change the character of this nation for the better”
Believe me it is going to change for the better at the very next national election in November.
Posted June 20th, 2008 at 7:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting that everyone blames the schools and everyone else. Where is the responsibility of the parents in this equation. What do they think “having a child” means? Is it now “Drop ‘em and leave ‘em.” So who raised those parents? Where did the “responsibility” and “accountability” get dropped.
It is difficult for parents today, but some still recognize what is their primary responsibility, and that is to raise those children “they chose” to have. It is well nigh impossible for the children to grow up when neither their parents nor grandparents have.
Posted June 20th, 2008 at 7:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lets see. The US is currently sending billions to mercenaries and war profiteers that hide their profits off shore so as to not pay taxes into the US Treasury. The US Government (i.e. taxpayers) subsidized Big Oil to the tune of $17 billion last year, even as they make profits unseen ever for any corporation in the world ever. Is this the socialism of which you speak?
Posted June 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I gotta go save the lawn (it is low water, but its been really dry). Thanks AP for the polite and respectful discussion. I think neither of us are the demons we are sometime portrayed as on the boards. Discussion and dialog is good thing. The nation (and world) is indeed in an energy quandary. There are no longer easy answers. Both sides will have to meet somewhere in the middle. We probably disagree where that meeting should occur exactly, me I favor the green energy and environmental side of things, but if we are crative and open and frank in our discussions, I have faith in American know how and ingenuity to get us there.
Posted June 20th, 2008 at 7:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whoops. Wrong diary…sheesh. All that love for naught.
Posted June 21st, 2008 at 3:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ms. Taylor, AP & al, are all afraid of “socialism.” That is weird, as in my life, which has involved the university, several jobs, and travel all over the country, I have met perhaps 1.5 socialists. It does not appear to me that it is “socialism” that such individuals are afraid of, it is that they might have to meet the social responsibilities they have been actively avoiding for most, if not all of their lives.
Posted June 21st, 2008 at 3:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
this is a bluntly stupid letter, that honestly barely qualifies even as an opinion, but i would expect no less from the regional folk of western colorado.
Posted June 21st, 2008 at 4:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Landonbain stated: “but i would expect no less from the regional folk of western colorado.”
Not so fast there hombre! Some folks yes, but certainly not every resident. You have to remember that many people in the area have spent their entire lives here, just as many in New York City have never left that area. And both, sadly enough, suffer from parochialism. The only difference is that the people of NYC are exposed to more things.
The problem with the lady’s letter is that it displays a total inability to think beyond the range of her experience and exposure. As that is all that has ever existed in her life, it must be true. Any effort to expose such people to anything new is viewed as a threat, and that includes any new “idea.”
Posted June 21st, 2008 at 10:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is true that many Grand Valley natives have lived very isolated lives. But there have also been transplants for other areas that have learned, after some years of residency, to become parochial. Wannabe rednecks are a very bizarre bunch like something out of the Twilight Zone.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m honestly not trying to be sarcastic and I truly wonder: what new freedom has the war in Iraq provided us? If anything, our rights have been restricted even more than they were before. Have you tried to fly anywhere lately? What a hassle! It will soon get even worse with the upcoming RealID.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
gjmom03, I don’t believe that the hassles involved in flying today have much to do with the war in Iraq and everything to do with 911. You should be glad that the new security measures have stopped any further terrorist incidents involving planes.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
That may be true…but it still didn’t answer the question, did it? And I’m not convinced that limiting the amount of baby formula I can fly with is saving the world.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gjmom, I believe the writer was refering to freedoms “there”, meaning in Iraq. As to the limiting of liquids that can be carried on a plane, or the requirement that shoes be removed for inspection, you probably know that these safety measures are being taken because of the shoe bomber and the fact that a number of planes were going to be blown up using liquid containers carried into a plane by passengers. I don’t like the hassles either, but I prefer to go through them if it will make the ride safer.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BullishFrog: “You should be glad that the new security measures have stopped any further terrorist incidents involving planes.”
Absolutely no proof of that and a misunderstanding of the laws of cause and effect.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Cause and effect Class?
Like, my dog hasn’t bitten anyone, so thank goodness I got him the Blue collar instead of the Yellow one.
Yes, I’m sure I can convince many people there is a connection there. Pathetic, isn’t it?
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, would you like to ride on an airplane with wannabe terrorists (anyone on the plane could be) with an absence of security screenings? Brave man, you are.
Ash is correct, we’ve had no repeat of 9/11 and have in fact snagged a few would be terrorists. I have no problems with the security measures… inconvenitent at times, but not a huge deal.
Gjmom, I don’t have formula to pack so I don’t know, but would they allow you to bring powdered forumla on board in pre-measured amounts along with bottled water to mix it with? I know they’d give (some sell) you bottled water on board. And many planes have a microwave they could warm the water in before you mix it up.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, bullish, it was you not ash that said we’d had no more incidents.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t mind the airline security measures myself, it’s just incorrect to conclude that we haven’t had an attack because of them. I’m still OK with it, better safe than sorry.
Where not understanding cause and effect gets dangerous is when gullible people are manipulated into believing total crud like we have not suffered a domestic attack because we invaded Iraq. When one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue: “Class, would you like to ride on an airplane with wannabe terrorists (anyone on the plane could be) with an absence of security screenings?”
Sue your are back to your old habits of making leaps in logic that are simply unfathomable. Did I say that I do not want the security screenings? No, I did not say that. I am glad they are in place. I merely pointed out that there is no evidence that they are the reason why no more terrorist attacks using airplanes have occurred.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“you” for “your”
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My contacts at Al Queda have not provided me with any of their past plans that may have had to be canceled because of the security measures that have been taken at airports. As soon as they let me know, I will provide the proof that Class requires.
Common sense would suggest that without security measures the suicide killers would have blown up as many planes as they could enter. But common sense does not appear to enter some people’s thinking.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Common sense suggests that the sun goes around the earth. After all this is what the great majority of human beings thought for centuries.
Common sense tells us the earth is flat-likewise believed by most for a very long time.
Common sense tells us that two sub atomic particles separated by great distances should not be able to know what happens to each other. But quantum physics demonstrates that what happens to one instantly affects the other no matter how far apart they are.
So much for common sense. I prefer uncommon sense.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, you don’t have to convince me that uncommon sense is your preferred reasoning method.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No old habits. Simple question.
You say there is no evidence, yet fact that there have been none, points to the fact that the measures have stopped them. Do I have proof? No. Does anyone? I doubt it.
I am not aware of any hard facts. For that matter I’m not aware of interviews asking Osama why he’s not attacked us. Maybe it is because he hasn’t been able to get anything on board… or wait, I know, he’s merely decided the American citizens are no longer infidels and he no longer needs to try to kill us.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Judging from Sue’s post and those of others, just on this forum, it appears that there is no need for further attacks. Such individuals are actually “success stories” for what happened almost seven years ago. They are so scared that all they want to do is “be protected and safe”. They could care less what freedoms and liberties they have to surrender(both theirs and those of others) to the government in order to achieve it. The “perfect safety and protection” is a mirage.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue: “You say there is no evidence, yet fact that there have been none, points to the fact that the measures have stopped them”
I do not believe that anyone who understands the rules of logic or the laws of cause and effect would agree with that statement. Certainly very few scientists would agree.
For all we know the terrorists had no more plans to use airplanes in their attacks, having already made their point. It is possible they decided that since world opinion turned against them after 9/11, it would be counterproductive to their cause to attempt that again. Perhaps they are so hard pressed in Afghanistan that they have had no opportunity to mount the logistics required for further airplane attacks. Perhaps they can find no suicide bombers who are also skilled pilots. Perhaps…well I could go on with a hundred other possibilities.
The point is you have not got a clue with respect to cause and effect. There are many possible explanations.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I beg to differ, I do have a clue. I also choose to believe that our government is doing what it can to protect American soil and American lives.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “They are so scared that all they want to do is “be protected and safe”. They could care less what freedoms and liberties they have to surrender(both theirs and those of others) to the government in order to achieve it. The “perfect safety and protection” is a mirage.”———–Is there anyone here who thinks that there is such a thing as “perfect safety and protection”?
There sure as hell were lots of Americans that were very fearful after 9/11. And most are thankful to those who protect us for the fact that terrorists have not succeeded in further attacks on this country.
I would suggest to you, sir, that a very large percentage of Americans believe that there are plenty of folks out there who would kill as many Americans as possible given the opportunity and that security measures must be taken to thwart those attacks.
Do you disagree? Do you believe that there is no need for the security measures that have been implemented at airports?
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks, bullish. I agree and no, I don’t believe there is such a thing as “perfect safety and protection”, either. That doesn’t mean we must not do the best we can.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class: “For all we know the terrorists had no more plans to use airplanes in their attacks, having already made their point. It is possible they decided that since world opinion turned against them after 9/11, it would be counterproductive to their cause to attempt that again.”———-REALLY? Did you miss the one where they were going to blow up a bunch of planes over the Atlantic using liquid containers? A plot which, in turn, resulted in banning liquid carry ons beyond a certain limited amount?
“Perhaps they are so hard pressed in Afghanistan that they have had no opportunity to mount the logistics required for further airplane attacks”———-LOL——like a true Democrat, busy in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. LOL.
“Perhaps they can find no suicide bombers who are also skilled pilots. Perhaps…well I could go on with a hundred other possibilities.” —————perhaps they can’t get them trained any more because of new security measures in place.
This is what happens when one relies on uncommon sense for their arguments.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Uh, bullish, class was just demonstrating the pitfalls of random speculation. I don’t think he was stating that these are his theories.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well ash, I think he is just being contrary in order to dispell any possibility that there is something this administration has done (such as preventing further attacks on US soil) which has been beneficial to Americans.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “Well ash, I think he is just being contrary in order to dispell any possibility that there is something this administration has done (such as preventing further attacks on US soil) which has been beneficial to Americans.
It goes well beyond that BFrog. I blame this administration for not preventing the 9/11 attack in the first place. Some of their own people tried to warn the administration but were ignored. As for preventing further attacks, not a lick of evidence, only wishful thinking on the part of the Bushies. A classic case of closing the barn door after the cows are already out.
I am trying hard to think of something that this pro big oil, pro war, anti science, anti environment administration has done which I would regard as beneficial but I come up with nothing. I truly believe that this administration will go down as one of the worst presidencies in history rivalling the Grant administration. If that is being contrary, so be it.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree with Class post 37. All of it.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class and Ash, I am grateful for the fact that we have not had any more attacks on US soil since 9/11. And I don’t attribute that to chance, good luck, or any changes in Al Qaeda’s plans for us. The eventual outcome in Iraq will determine how President Bush’s presidency in judged in the future. But as far as his efforts to keep this country from further attacks, he has succeeded. I realize that you disagree, as do most Democrats. But in this regard, I believe you are being unfair.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm PM This User Report this comment
BFrog: “Well ash, I think he is just being contrary in order to dispell any possibility that there is something this administration has done (such as preventing further attacks on US soil) which has been beneficial to Americans.
It goes well beyond that BFrog. I blame this administration for not preventing the 9/11 attack in the first place. Some of their own people tried to warn the administration but were ignored. As for preventing further attacks, not a lick of evidence, only wishful thinking on the part of the Bushies. A classic case of closing the barn door after the cows are already out.
I am trying hard to think of something that this pro big oil, pro war, anti science, anti environment administration has done which I would regard as beneficial but I come up with nothing. I truly believe that this administration will go down as one of the worst presidencies in history rivalling the Grant administration. If that is being contrary, so be it.
ok, classless, one thing i’m gonna take issue with here…the CLINTON administration was directly responsible for the lack of prevention for 9/11….slick willy (i know, he’s always gonna be yer hero) had obama IN HIS HANDS and failed to do anything with him….according to that huge honking report (i admit, i haven’t read the entire thing, i’m waiting til i finish war and peace by tolstoy) the evidence was in the prior administrations hands before bush (no, i don’t care for him either…he’s a typical scummy politician) took office…
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog stated in one of his posts: “There sure as hell were lots of Americans that were very fearful after 9/11. And most are thankful to those who protect us for the fact that terrorists have not succeeded in further attacks on this country.”
So people were “scared” then but, isn’t it about time that we got over it, or are they going to be governed by fear all of their lives. The difficulty is not “fear” itself but allowing oneself to be controlled by it instead of doing what one has to be done. So! People should get over it, and stop whining and looking for pity.
What I note is that it is not the people of New York that are whining the most and most scared, the ones that appear to be most afraid are those that were not even close to the events, like right here in “Happy Valley.”
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “So people were “scared” then but, isn’t it about time that we got over it, or are they going to be governed by fear all of their lives.”
Now that we’ve had Republican presidents for 20 out of the last 28 years:
1.Hopefully people have gotten over the fear that Republicans will do away with Social Security.
2.Hopefully they will have gotten over the fear that Republicans will repeal Roe vs. Wade.
3. Hopefully they will resist Democratic fearmongering that the world is about to burn up due to global warming.
In other words, the “fear” game is played very well by your Democrats, Mr. R.L. So please, don’t play the fear card with me.
Now, when it comes to protecting this country, you bet you boobies that Republicans will do a better job. And that is a primary reason that I will not vote for Mr. (I will meet with all our enemies without pre-conditions) Obama.
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In his reply bullishfrog stated:
“Now that we’ve had Republican presidents for 20 out of the last 28 years:
1.Hopefully people have gotten over the fear that Republicans will do away with Social Security.
2.Hopefully they will have gotten over the fear that Republicans will repeal Roe vs. Wade.
3. Hopefully they will resist Democratic fearmongering that the world is about to burn up due to global warming.”
Watch it! You are trying to change the subject, much as other people do when they cannot answer on one issue.
(1)The fact that Social Security was not done away with, was not for lack of trying, by various means.
(2)The fact that Roe vs. Wade was not overturned, again not for lack of trying from the “religious right.”
(3)As to global warming, it has nothing to do with either Democrat or Republican. It has to do with climate changes and the conclusion drawn by over 2,000 scieintists from many disciplines. Even the current administration, that attempted to deny it for years, has finally had to admit that it is probably real.
As far as Senator Obama is concerned, the fact that you will not vote for him is your choice. And it has nothing to do with his foreign policy or negotiating with our adversaries. Ever heard the saying: “Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer.” Do you know what is meant by those words?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.