================================================ Subject: Re: Flags and NWO From: "Creed - 7M3 - Live" To: Date: Mon 6 Aug 2001 21:04:15 -0400 ================================================ Thanks Lee for the clarification. I think it was needed. I was quite a bit over 21 but still under 30. But voted against the raising of the drinking age. If memory serves me right (Might of killed off those brain cells drinking..LOL). The vote was to leave the drinking age alone. Curious, Jim -------------------------- Lee Reed wrote: > to somewhat clarify jim's point ...the state of ohio raised their drinking > age to 21 in order to be eligible for federal highway funds...that's how the > federal gov got involved there... > Lee > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith P. Mears" > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 10:01 PM > Subject: Re: Flags and NWO > > > >>- 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. >>> >>But if you read the whole paragraph (and if you do ANY driving at all), >> > you > >>know that there IS no "double-nickel" anymore. EVERY state is allowed to >>determine it's own maximum speed limit, and that limit has NO BEARING on >> > the > >>appropriation of highway funds. So your standard here has become a moot >>point. >> >> >>>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. >>> >>If it was put to a popular vote (meaning the residents of the state >> > voted), > >>how does the federal government even enter the equation? You have managed >>to contradict yourself quite nicely on this one. >> >> >>>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. >>> >>Aren't you a bit young to be THIS cynical? Granted, the majority of our >>elected officials don't necessarily always have our best interests in >> > mind, > >>but give them a LITTLE credit. >> >> >>>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 >>> >>Again, aren't you a bit young to be THIS cynical? Yes, there are flaws in >>the system, from top to bottom. But it is still the best system in the >>world. >> >>To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, >> > visit: > >>http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp >> > > 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