A Very Sincere Message To All Who Want To Run For A President Of The Usa.

I feel like I touched a nerve here. That was not my intention.

GTech. I don't want to serve in the army. I DON'T WANT TO HURT ANYBODY, I DON'T WANT TO KILL ANYBODY. I DON'T BELIEVE IN WARS.

There are much better ways to serve people (or ones country) than the service in the army IMO.

I want people to live the way Jesus Christ say they ought to.

Here is a good true saying:
"War is for the fools. Peace is for the smart ones."

 

I myself am not cut out to be in the Military, or the police force, or to be a fireman, but all the same I occasionally train to defend myself and others should the need arise. I do not seek conflict, but if it seeks me, and I am not able to avoid it safely, I will be ready for it.

I am not cut out to be a doctor. I couldn’t dissect a worm, let alone a dead pregnant cat. *sniffle* though if I, with my current learning and life experience were given the chance to go back and do it again… I would have at least gotten up to the frog. But cats and pregnancy hold to special an reserved a place in my heart to be able to even view such a creature without a sob. I’m fighting down one just thinking about it… so yeah, I’m not cut out to be a doctor, but I am fully certified in the big 3 red cross certifications. First Aid, Adult CPR+AED, and Child/Infant CPR.

And just because I’m not cut out to be a soldier or a doctor does not mean I am not grateful that there are people who are, and who are there to protect my life, and to try to save it. And if I can make their jobs a bit easier by training myself up, I’m going to try to do so.

 

Fighting back after been attacked is a different story.
As a matter of fact WE ATTACKED IRAQ.

 

Fourth time. Shall we try five? There's obviously a reason you are avoiding the question.

That's your own personal desire. Better men and women then you or I will ever be, will keep us both free.

Here's another good quote:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

 

I've never seen someone get so worked up on a forum

 

I have got to say that I definitely like this quote, but not quite so much as the following.

"A man willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither"

I'm not sure, but I believe I saw it attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

 

And slamming a father up against a wall to prevent him from beating his child, while calling for aid from my friends, even if I may get a black eye or a bloodied nose is different from attacking a peer for insulting me. I am honestly not 100% sure if starting the war in Iraq was the right choice, but I do feel that the butchering and oppresing of civilians that was going on under Sadam's rule needed to be stopped. There is still butchering going on, and we are still trying to fight it. When we don't have to worry about any kind of large scale slaughter in Iraq, I think that the effort, WMD or no, will still be worth it in the end.

BTW. On WMD: www[dot]foxnews[dot]com/story/0,2933,200499,00[dot]html

 

Why don't we aid any of the Sudanese then? There are slaughterings there still.

 

When you start insulting people for no reason like that, it really makes it seem like you've completely lost an argument

 

I am in favor of intervention in Sudan, and Darfur. However, our current military resources have been stretched thin by efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, as evidenced by the fact that we have sent our national guard over seas.

As for why Iraq, and not Sudan or Darfur? Because people have been more focused on terrorists in the middle east thus far, and Saddam has ties with the Terrorists that have attacked us. There is no -one- reason for why we are in Iraq, but several. WMDs, Terrorist ties, the plight of the Iraqi people... there was a congressional document that listed the official reasons that the congress authorized the continued conflict and called it a war, there's a big list in there. I have to be getting home now, or I'd go look it up. I will when I get back in on Monday, if you still want me to look it up then.

Oh, and I don't buy for a MINUTE that oil interests weren't at least a factor in the decision. I may accept the noble reasons, but I'm not blind enough to think that the selfish ones don't also play a part.

 

they won't change.

 

Your question has been answered already. You really need to READ or REREAD my posts.

 

The war simply isn't economically feasible.

 

People whom will dictate what they think should be done or defend that which is first according to our Constitution's meaning...then possibly to the dictates of our treaties or congress. That's the inclined order of our law.

Now when a judge says 'fuck-it', and allows laws to pass that aren't constitutionally based... rather are a part of their philosophical standards,....they're circumventing the very essence of our government. They're implying that either the states correct the whole matter or that they change the Constitution, when such changes are truely unnecessary or bad.

Most often you have to wait till they die, and overturn their injustices; but that's a rarity, though.

They're essentially Kings...either really good ones or bad ones. I wouldn't want the system to be overtly altered (as I think it's probably the most honest of them all), but I think there has to be fundamental discussion over valid checks over this institution...one that requires a huge concesus to approach.

 

Thats because he has.
is he making sense yet, nope, didnt think so.

I live in hope for the day he wakes up.

 

Looks like I have a new stalker, darkscat. I'm flattered he would devote virtually every post in the section this morning to me.

Keep up the good work!

 

Thank you. I wanted your definition of what a "philosophical king" was, whether it was used as a person who was the tip of the top of the philosophical ladder, or if you meant it as those who rule using philosophy. Clearly you meant the second, and for clarification, I thank you.

 

Don't flatter yourself sweetheart.

 

Actually I have been spending the couple of months I have been gone starting my own forum while Gtit has been swimming in BushSh1t.
And its got a lot better content and a lot less idiots than here.