I don't even put bumper stickers on my car let alone this

[vikesfankevin1986]

Yes I did. And reguardless of how I feel and my opinions, I still have to support the president in his decision. He is my commander in chief. I don't get to pick and choose what wars I want to fight in. Even if I don't agree with the war in Iraq, I still have to be part of it.

And I greatly appreciate your service. That is, however, irrelevant to the topic at hand. Your argument pretty much s*** all over the constitution. I just wasn't sure if you were aware of that fact.

I am still an individual and still have my own opinions. That doesn't mean I don't what I said I would do. I have given up freedoms being in the military...how does that make sense? I give up my freedoms to fight for my/out freedoms? But at the same time I still live a perfectly normal life. If my commander said he is going to track my car and puts a tracker on it, there isn't anything I can do about it but it probably would not change my life.
I still believe giving up some freedoms for safety is needed. I like to think of it more as I serve my country to keep my country safe. The safety of my family is number 1. Military members give up freedoms to keep YOU ALL safe and to keep YOUR freedoms intact.
It's a fact though that things in this world change and maybe we need to change things with it. We do have ammendments and that implys we have made changes to the orgional document. Maybe we need more ammendments...

[themadscientist]

I will accept some danger to maintain freedom. If we need to pass new amendments, it's not to expand government control, it's to reduce it.

[stebo0728]

I will accept some danger to maintain freedom. If we need to pass new amendments, it's not to expand government control, it's to reduce it.

Agreed.

[IBCoupe]

You want to reduce government control? We don't need new amendments for that, we just need our government to abide by the existing ones.

[audtatious]

You want to reduce government control? We don't need new amendments for that, we just need our government to abide by the existing ones.

Ain't that the truth. I was watching Stossel the other day and he was talking about the number of new regulations that are added on top of old regulations each year as politicians seem to believe they are successful based upon the quantity of bills they press through/develop/co-sponsor. Things are WAY out of hand.

[stebo0728]

You want to reduce government control? We don't need new amendments for that, we just need our government to abide by the existing ones.

Ain't that the truth. I was watching Stossel the other day and he was talking about the number of new regulations that are added on top of old regulations each year as politicians seem to believe they are successful based upon the quantity of bills they press through/develop/co-sponsor. Things are WAY out of hand.

Thats what I was getting at the other day when I asked if there would ever be a day when all the legislation we need, at least the major stuff, has already been passed and simple budgetary matters are all the will remain?

[IBCoupe]

One would like to think that one day that would be the case. But eventually we'll need new regulation for the flying cars we hadn't thought of yet.

[stebo0728]

One would like to think that one day that would be the case. But eventually we'll need new regulation for the flying cars we hadn't thought of yet.

Certainly new issues require new consideration, but when are we finally gonna settle the OLD stuff?

[IBCoupe]

When we have complete knowledge and complete cooperation between all parties, I imagine then that we'll have to only write one law (each, I suppose) for the old stuff.