Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FastNed

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Waitsfield, VT
  1. Please note that the grounds for discharge of members of the Armed Forces of the USA are established by Law, by the US Congress and the military must follow the Law. Under President Clinton the "Don't ask, don't tell" doctrine was devised and passed into Law by Act of Congress and the discharge of homosexuals is required by the provisions of that Law. Unless and until the Congress takes action to amend that Law, such discharges are mandated. The military is unable to waive the provisions of the Law. Note the best case scenario is a General or Medical discharge which are not the same as an H
  2. This issue, the seperation of church and state, is highly devisive in America today. Often throughout our history issues such as this have grown to the point that they become a defining issue for Americans. We are approaching such a point today, in the opinion of many conservatives like myself. Many believe that in our quest to protect that minority who are not believers, we have run rough-shod over the majority who have a faith. A little history is necessary: those who took part in the colonial revolution were people of faith who knew that many of their ancestors had fled to America to esca
  3. Exactly how do you think these State Court Judges are going to establish jurisdiction over these defendants?
  4. This is not a place to post fantasy. Provide a source, name the Court or cease and desist with such stupidity! The Constitution provides the only legal method to remove a President from office.
  5. As long as Arafat and his gunmen control the Palestinians there can be no road map to anywhere. If, as and when he is removed (one way or another) a possibility exists for progress. What ever the merits of their cause, they are negated by terrorist acts and until these cease, there can be no rewards, no peace, no settlements. Rabid dogs are put down, not petted!
  6. Hello, Tool, welcome to the Forum. You pose a very thought provoking question! I believe the answer to your question is America and the reason for my belief is "Freedom". Individual freedom, I believe is the key to this question. No other system to date has provided individuals with the personal freedom to be the best they can - to make of themselves and their talents whatever they can achieve and to keep the most of that achievement for themselves and family. Individual success can make a country great and I believe that is America's secret!
  7. To claim that this was a "democratically elected Government" is absurd. Both the Carter Center and the OAS alleged massive fraud in the last election. Everyone turned off International Aid as they were unwilling to fund this government which became no better than those which preceded it. US aid funds were sequestered; i.e., while authorized, they were withheld for appropriate cause. With the departure of Aristede (?) some funds were released by the US and other Nations will or have followed suit. Years ago, Clinton listened to the Democratic Black Caucus and put Aristede back in power by for
  8. Hello, D4DEV - may I ask that you repost on this topic and make your points with a few quotes from the article. This is an important topic and needs discussion. What should the US do about Pakistan? How far has "Johnny Appleseed" Khan spread nuclear knowledge? Should the US bring down the President and gamble that the fanatics of the ISI will not take power? Should Pakistan and India be forced to surrender their nuclear weapons? It appears that the US has knowledge of all "known" Pakistan Nukes and has forced adoption of Command and Control measures to insure that they can not be used w
  9. Hello, NDP NEWBIE, exactly what is your point and how does it relate to the topic under discussion? Each of the United States sets qualifications for Voter enfranchisement. In a number of States, conviction of a Felony results in disenfranchisement - your right to vote is rescinded. The Federal Government has nothing to do with these qualifications - this is not a matter of equal rights or discrimination based upon race, creed, etc.. I presume that the Provinces of Canada have something similar but please correct me if I am mistaken. Your 'beef', if I may call it that, appears to be with St
  10. Issuance of a Marriage License is strictly a "State" function. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction in this area. The Mayor of San Francisco is acting against clear California Law and is, no doubt, guilty of Misprison of Office but any prosecution is the primary responsibility of the State of California. Note that as the issuance is 'illegal', any subsequent "marriage" may well be judged as 'invalid' (depending upon Cali Law) and at a minimum, will be used as a basis for denial of "Full Faith and Credit" in other jurisdictions should attempts be made to claim a legal relationship exi
  11. I get amused when I read a variety of opinions on George Bush - usually from non-Americans or from the 'Left' side of the political spectrum. Ignoring the politically motivated hatred (remember the Rabid Republican 'Impeach Clinton' movement) it seems that the opinions expressed have much to do with the simple fact that George Bush is not a "TV Personality", is not a public speaker, a Snake Oil Salesman or 'Slick Willie' ! For the last fifty years, with the coming of the TV Age, the Media has insisted that a 'Politician' must be photogenic and it is doubtful that an "Abe Lincoln" (not a pre
  12. I could care less about with whom someone else elects to sleep or live - the only sexuality I control is my own and that is as it should be. I am not a homophobe, I just don't care what anyone else does. While the State is involved (for historical reasons), marriage is a religious matter (for most) and has been defined for some six thousand years as the union of a man and a woman. This is not simply a matter of custom but is basic dogma for many churches. No one is going to use the State to force a change in our dogma or theology. If it is legal status they wish, a Civil Union seems appropri
  13. Another Press source (which escapes me, at the moment) has identified the two who spoke to Novak as members of Vice President Cheney's staff. This entire matter has the substance of a political mud fight and it's highly unlikely that criminal charges could or will be brought against anyone. (1) For charges to be brought, it must be proven that those who made the disclosure knew of her undercover status, i.e., (2) People who work openly at the CIA do not normally have "covert" status. It seems clear that at one time, Ms. Palme did have covert status but after delivery of her child a
  14. If Vice President Cheney bows out, I believe President Bush has the character and the courage to select Condi Rice as his VP. She has not (to my knowledge) ever indicated if she would consider the position. She would pay a heavy price were she to do so as the Black political establishment is wedded to the Democratic 'spoils' system and she would be attacked (as was Judge Thomas) to prevent any movement of Black people to the Republican Party.
  15. Well, TP, instead of throwing around some rather serious allegations, why don't you identify the "citizens" of whom you speak? Two come to mind that fit that category but please identify those you have in mind. First, I remember one, captured abroad as a combatant (Saudi, I believe) who revealed he had been born in America but left as an infant. The other who comes to mind is Padilla, taken into custody upon landing in Chicago on an International flight. If these are the types of people to whom you refer and upon which you base your allegations, I think you are far off base. Your statements
  • Create New...