================================================ Subject: Re: Flags and NWO From: "Creed - 7M3 - Live" To: Date: Sun 5 Aug 2001 19:30:13 -0400 ================================================ Keith P. Mears wrote: >>My stance on the issue of a loose federal government is mainly due to >>the fact that the federal government gets moneys from all over the >>country. But then appropriates moneys back to the states. But with >>strings attached to force thier compliance. Examples of this would be >>the 55 MPH speed limit. The 21 drinking age and the lowered legal limit> >> > of blood to alcohol down to a lesser level. > > Well, let's see. As far as I know (and I've traveled pretty extensively), > the ONLY state that still actually has a 55 MPH speed limit is Connecticut, > and trust me, with the way some of those fools drive, even THAT is too high. > In most states west of the Mississippi, the speed limit is at least 70, more > often 75, and in Montana, there is NO daytime speed limit (the signs > actually read "Any REASONABLE speed"). There are also several states east > of the Mississippi with 70 MPH limits, including Michigan, Tennessee, South > Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. And the appropriation of Federal funds back > to the states has nothing to do with a state's established speed limit; > instead, it is based on how badly the state needs money to improve it's > roads. It follows, then, that states with more people get more money. Why give it to the feds to legeslate the common "kitty"? The thing happened back during the "oil shortage". When the western world was doomed by a lack of "oil availability". The highway money is appropriated to build the interstates and is apportioned according to the Federal government. The interstates are a part of our "National Defense System". - the states were forced to lower the speed limits to the "double nickle" or loose funds. The highways aren't based on a state's wealth. But on it's vastness of interstate highways. The blackmail shouldn't of been used for such a purpose. states should of have had the right to choose. Not be forced to by an unrelated incident to comply with the federal government. My stance on the legal drinking age is a little complex. Having served in the > Army when I was 18, it did (and still does) seem a bit foolish that a person > is old enough to DIE for his/her country at that age, yet (s)he can't anjoy > a drink. The problem with that is, MOST people at 18 (including yours > truly) are simply not mature enough to drink responsibly (and for that > matter, there are plenty of 21-year olds who aren't mature enough). It happened in Ohio, the 21 drinking age was put to a vote and lost by popular vote. the state complied with the federal government, regardless to the vote of it's voting population. How can somebody be mature enough to fight a war and chance losing their life. But not mature enough to drink with safegaurds towards driving and self preservation? That said, I honestly don't know how the Feds appropriate money to the states > with regard to the drinking age. And regarding the lower BAC, it seems to > me that the states are FAR more interested in saving lives than getting > money. Of course, I may be giving too much credit to the politicians who > SET these limits, but sometimes I just can't help being an optimist. > If the requirement was to raise the Blood and Alcohol limit or not get highway funds. I'm sure none of these concerned politicians would turn down the money. Public safety, I doubt it. > >>As long as you would not fight for a flag for the flags sake. But hold >>on to fight for the ideals. It is not a hinderance. I just don't think >>I'd hold on to fighting for the same flag. if the principles of the >>country were no longer there. >> > > I THINK you're agreeing with me on this, but it is a little hard to follow > your thoughts here. > You are right. It is the principles, regardless of the banner or no banner to waive. > >>About the Confederate flag. I am not sure of what other principles were >>held by the supporters of the Confederation of states. Except for >>slavery, which is held by many. But, I can't see that slavery was the >>only issue that the confederacy was based on. I feel that it was more >>based on less federal governmental control and more choices available to >>the states. I believe that this particular ideal was purposefully >>covered by the slavery issue. >> > > For me, the Confederate flag stood for hatred and oppression. Hatred OF an > entire race, and FOR the people who were trying so hard to rid the country > of that hatred. Slavery was an abomination on this country, much as the > treatment of Native Americans was (and in some cases, still IS). > I'll never really know the answer to this issue. But I would rationalize that it was the strong central government and the slave thing was an excuse to start a war. But you know us northerners are always blaming the southerners for slavery. we were angels! (sarcasm) > >>As must be obvious, I am in no way that knowing of the full relation of >>central control on the US survival. Nor the EU or the African model of >>the states. But our government is actually based on the 5 indian nations >>of the northern hemisphere. which is a weak national and strong state. >> > > Which is why I took you to task for your "Don't you worry, the new world > order blah blah blah". And if you think about it, our system is based on > BOTH a strong national AND state governments. This would explain why the > men who drafted the Constitution created a document that placed ALL powers > not expressly granted to the FEDERAL government with the STATES. Also > consider the National Guard, which, while still considered part of the U.S. > Armed Forces, are FIRST and FOREMOST protectors of the state. Consider also > that our President, elected by the people, and commonly considered the most > powerful man in the world, is still balanced by Congress, who are also > elected by the people, and are our DIRECT voice in government (you know, the > "I have to vote how my consituents would want me to vote"). That is the way that the checks and balances are supposed to work. Theory and practice are two different animals. Judges, politicians, etc. There is corruption. and this is with the checks and balances. What is the goal of the Seattle conference? Is it commerce or the protection of people throughout the world? Pollution, lack of worker rights and health safety. That is what I see. Money... no other reason. the few, not the majority! Jim > > To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: > http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp > > -- We're constantly being bombarded by insulting and humiliating music, which people are making for you the way they make those Wonder Bread products. Just as food can be bad for your system, music can be bad for your spirtual and emotional feelings. It might taste good or clever, but in the long run, it's not going to do anything for you. -- Bob Dylan, "LA Times", September 5, 1984 To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp