U.S. Pledge of Allegiance now illegal....

[gosta 0]

>You should still apologize for not stating facts. I >apologize every single time I am wrong. :-) >>You Said: >"Well, once the figures for this year are out... Also, >please take into account the balance of payments - the US is >technically insolvent (link to follow later)." >>Our GDP was revised and grew over 6% in the first quarter. >Our Unemployment is lower, our inflation rate is lower, and >you believe that the EU will be a larger economy by the end >of 2002. That is a bit of a stretch, IMHO. >>As far as the United States being insolvent, why would you >make such comment. Do you dislike the United States? No, I don't dislike the US - I lived there for a year, and enjoyed it - I just disagree with a lot of the government's policies, especially the continous disregard for International Law.>>I think economically, we should be running a deficit in our >country. Surpluses show inefficiencies in the budget, IMHO. >Talk to any economist as I have, and they tend to have some >pretty strong opinions on the matter. We are are at war >whether people realize it or not, and our currently fighting >for our right to exist on this good earth. Do you live in close proximity to the University of Chicago, by any chance? Well, ask two economists the same question, and you'll get three different answers...;).>>Or, we could start collecting debts owed to us instead of >continuing to forgive those debts, eh.... :-)You could, but in all likelihood, everyone else would be doing the same, and that's where the US could run into some serious difficulties. Interesting mind game, though - I wonder, how this shift in wealth would affect the nations' prosperity; I bet it'll be someone really obscure, like Iceland who'll come out on top... :). >>>you said: >"True, but only France and Germany could pass laws >legalizing murder, Texas and Illinois could not." >>WRONG, You see, Illinois could legalize murder if they >wanted to. And actually my faith tells me and my heart tells >me that we already sanction murder in the form of >executions. Again, I am stating facts, and you are stating >conjecture as though you do not know our laws or our form of >Government. Please do some research as to how legislation >is enacted by both the states and our Federal Government to >fully understand this debate. I'm afraid you just don't >show proper depth to continue to make your comparisons of >our laws and our way of life.True, bad example. However, they're still severely restricted in their sovereignty, like being precluded from having an army. Plus, federal laws can be enforced in any state.******Side note, you have not been to Texas, >have you? :-lol )******. Yes, I have - I should also mention Bavaria, in the case of Germany. Similar thing, they don't like the rest of the Germans, and insist they're something special. Conversely, the rest Germany dislikes the Bavarians... I wonder, if Munich and Austin are twin towns :).>Give it time, IMHO, they will have their own military. And >I am not saying that is a bad thing, I think it would be >good. Yes, a Common Security and Defence Policy is in the works, but a fully blown EU army replacing the national forces is a very very looong way off (how much time are you willing to give it?).Cheers,Gosta.

[Sonar5 3]

You said:"No, I don't dislike the US - I lived there for a year, and enjoyed it - I just disagree with a lot of the government's policies, especially the continous disregard for International Law."Start another thread on that topic and I will comment.You said:"True, bad example. However, they're still severely restricted in their sovereignty, like being precluded from having an army. Plus, federal laws can be enforced in any state."WROING AGAIN, GOSTA.... :-lol :-lolMan, you really have no Idea, so maybe you should just stop embarrassing yourself by misstating topics... You really have no clue how my country works.Each state does have an Army. We refer to it as the National Guard for each state. They are at the control and serve the Governor of each state, and with permission from the Governor can be called to serve in a federal capacity.You really need to do some research as I am getting bored with correcting your ineptness to accept facts.Regards,Joe PS _ Here are some quotes from my Constitution: To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;And Finally, the main guarantee IMHO"Amendment IIA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.".http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[gosta 0]

There is a difference in definition as to debt and deficit, so please use proper wording. The wording used is correct, note that I said 'insolvent', not 'bankrupt'.Cheers,Gosta.

[Sonar5 3]

Well, I am still waiting for your so-called link you alluded to above.or did you mean those words in a different context. You should try and be a little more clearer in your writing, since I am a product of Public Education...... :-lolHere is the Definition of Insolvent:in

[gosta 0]

>PS - Since I am in the definition mood, here are the only >two relevant terms used to define my Governments fisacl >situation: >>What is the difference between the debt and the deficit? > The deficit is the fiscal year difference >between what the Government takes in from taxes and other >revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the >Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the >deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget. (The >off-budget items are typically comprised of the two Social >Security trust funds, old-age and survivors insurance and >disability insurance, and the Postal-Service fund.) >Generally, on-budget outlays tend to exceed on-budget >receipts, while off-budget receipts tend to exceed >off-budget outlays. >>You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus >accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits >require the Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to >keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by >selling Treasury securities like T-bills, notes, bonds and >savings bonds to the public. Additionally, the Government >Trust Funds are required by law to invest accumulated >surpluses in Treasury securities. The Treasury securities >issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds >(Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total >debt. Exactly. The main difference between insolvency and bankruptcy is that insolvency can be temporary, while bankruptcy is always final.Cheers,Gosta.

[gosta 0]

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

[Sonar5 3]

You continue to amaze me as you refuse to acknowledge your inconsistancies.You linkage is flawed and incorrect for the reasons I outlined above that you refuse to acknowledge.Do you not understand that you stated insolvent is not the same as bankrupt and I showed you were wrong.Why can't you admit when you are wrong, as it is your quickest way to recovery.Best of Luck to you in your views. Maybe you can come back and reply once you actually understand what you are talking about, and actually write some facts instead of relying on me to do the research.Regards,Joe

[Sonar5 3]

They don't keep troops, they are a Militia as defined by our Constitution, and again you do not understand our Countries Government or our definitions, or our states rights. So why do you keep trying to defend a position you obviously do not have a proper background on to speak about it.Our Militia is a force in reserve.Oh, and please note: Without the consent of Congress.....Sheesh.....I see that you are not one to give up your point of view, which I commend you for, but you should really admit when you are proven wrong and move on.Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[gosta 0]

Oh, and please note: Without the consent of Congress.....which, I believe, is a federal body.Cheers,Gosta.

[gosta 0]

Sorry, I assumed your vast knowledge of the law included basic definitions.For a definition, check out those:http://www.sands-trustee.com/fghi.htm(I know it's Canadian, check out the US legal definition and tell me it's different)For the process: http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/I...le/IntlInso.pdfCheers,Gosta.

[Sonar5 3]

And that is the best you can do...You obviously have a much better grasp than I do on how The United States Government works. You have much better knowledge than I do on all 50 Individual state Constitutions as well as the United States Constitution. And you must have read every single United States Supreme Court Decision.I apologize for ever questioning your great wisdom since I have demonstrated that I know nothing about our laws and how my Government works.Please run through each of the forums and tell everyone you know more than I about The United States of America....I am humbled by your knowledge, oh great one... :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lolNice Try, Good Night, I'm done... :-)Joe :-wave.Oshkosh Pictures From 2001 (Part 1) 78 Pics in Frames with 1mb in ThumbnailsHigh speed connection Recommended:http://home.attbi.com/~flypics1/FrameSet.htm.Oshkosh Pictures From 2001 (Part 2) 106 Pics in Frames with 1.5mb in ThumbnailsHigh speed connection recommended:http://home.attbi.com/~flypics2/FrameSet.htm.Picture Gallery of My Flight in a 1945 SNJ-6 on June 1st, 2002Joliet, Illinoishttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/FrameSet.htm.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest lawyerpilot]

Sick of getting messages in my inbox that this thread is being updated, from one post that I made two days ago.I think this thing has gone on long enough.P4 1.8768 ram 80 gig hardriveVisiontek Ti4 4600CH yoke/pedals19" inch monitor-Soundblaster PCI 512Win XPPrivate PilotAOPALawyerPilots Bar Association"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and thus will ever be."

[gosta 0]

>You obviously have a much better grasp than I do on how The >United States Government works. You have much better >knowledge than I do on all 50 Individual state Constitutions >as well as the United States Constitution. And you must have >read every single United States Supreme Court Decision. >>I apologize for ever questioning your great wisdom since I >have demonstrated that I know nothing about our laws and how >my Government works. Hardly, remember how this started? I merely pointed out a few inaccuracies in your conception of the EU, which you brushed off with the 'looks like duck...' comment. Trying to explain some of my points, I may have used bad analogies, but hey, no 'looks like a duck...' excuse for me.Aren't you applying double standards here? I may not know every single decision of the US Supreme Court, neither do I know the full text of the constitution off the top of my hand. And yes, I have mistakenly used the word 'army' instead of 'troops'. But according to you, rather than being just semantics (the poor duck again), in my case it demonstrates my utter ignorance of your country's legal and political system.This is the general discussion forum on a flightsim website. We all enjoy flying pretend planes on our computers, are all from different backgrounds, have different opinions, which we voice in a 'general' discussion forum. Most of us have to work, so there's not much time in which to read posts, post replies and do in-depth research. This is not a 'legal aspects of the US constitution as interpreted by Joe' forum, so don't expect me to surf the net to find a quote to support every word I say. The limited amount of research I can do in little time involves using subscription services like Lexis or Westlaw, to which I cannot post a link. I do use 'cut-and-paste', where appropriate, but I always consider the length of the resulting post. For a proper discussion, you could always send me an e-mail, but bear in mind, the reply could take up to two days (paid work comes first ;) ).Cheers and good night,Gosta.

[Guest]

Three things to comment on.First, the school vouchers are in no way "have to be used for religious education". Parents that have vouchers may use those vouchers to send their children to public schools. The case at hand dealt with some parents of children going to inner-city Cleveland public schools, wanting to send their children somewhere else. They could quite easily have sent them to public schools in Cleveland suburbs (however, I think the suburbs already have laws in place that prevent 'boundary exemptions', but that's totally unrelated).Secondly, I don't interpret the exception clause the same way you do. IMO, the exception clause was created to prevent state goverments to continue funding state-run churches, as was the case in Maryland (I think ... this was the case in at least one state, but I can't remember exactly which one) when the USA and it's Constitution was being formed. I don't think they intended for it to be a "you can't make any correlations between God and gov't" clause.Finally, consider this. Every day the Supreme Court is in session, you can hear the marshal say "God save this honorable court". Don't you think that in the Supreme Court, where these things are hashed out, that that would have been presented as something they can't do, as described in the Constitution?If you don't like seeing "In God We Trust" on your greenbacks, you can send them to me. =)Thanks, marco

[Donmo 6]

I made the statement yesterday that it was the Knights Of Columbus who got the "UNDER GOD" added into the song. I now see that it is GONE. That is a 100% accurate statement. I had researched this song 3 months ago. If that offends anyone, take it up with the KOC, but don't erase the facts.Don Moser