Nope I was wondering why you picked those two guys I know you had a reason. You could have probably found someone who had political desires like Obama who refused to do this also since this law has been enacted.
Yeah, I could have picked most any President before the whole salute/pledge became a part of the public display. I used Washington and Jefferson mostly as a starting point and in some sense a model of what would come so to speak.
I thought maybe you were saying that Washington and Jefferson did not like being a part of the British empire so they violated the laws of the crown and started their own country.
Well in some sense that's true but it's probably more said of Jefferson than Washington since Tom drafted the Declaration of Independence but overall your point is correct.
Obama does not like being an American so he violates the law
Now you've peeked my interest. Violation of Law! OK, what is the penalty for his public display of this violation? I mean, if it's against the law there must be a penalty enforced or you'd have rampant lawbreakers. Seems odd that so far the federal gov't hasn't passed a law banning flag burning but there are criminal sanctions for not standing and saluting the flag during a public display? Amazing!
and has Diesel claiming that he did not know any better.
Well in fairness to D, sounds like I don't know any better either, that's why you need to enlighten us on the law itself and the enforceable sanctions.
He has so far proposed almost 1 trillion dollars of new spending and now he says he may not pull our troops out of Iraq.
WHAT! That sounds like the Bush plan. I'd think you'd be voting for the guy! Besides, I already told you that Obama wouldn't leave so why is that a surprise. Read the record! Read the record!
Maybe he does not want to start a new country but he sure says he wants to change many things with this one and none that I can see would be for the better.
Precedence! Precedence! Precedence! Past Presidents, both Republican and Democrat have themselves radically altered the country and the office of the President so where is what Obama is suggesting a radical departure from the past?
Again you pick a couple of men from 200 years ago for a reason and I was just curious what the real reason was.
Well, including what I said earlier, in other posts you've stated you were for smaller gov't. less taxes and even suggested you had libertarians beliefs too. I assumed that you could appreciate the examples of Washington (himself a general at one time) and Jefferson (great advocate of limited gov't) but I'm starting to think I was mistaken. sorry about that!
I really do not think that it was because Diesel would like the form of government they envisioned. Heck I don't think Hussein Obama would like it either.
Diesel was never on my mind! Hey didn't Willie Nelson do a song about that?
Our Federal government for better or worse looks far different today than it did then. The control it has over our daily lives is much like what they were trying to leave behind.(not exactly but in a different way)
Yes it does look different. The control they were trying to leave was technologically different from our day but the philosophy behind it was no different. Empirical merchantilism was the rule of the day and other than (in our day)some added splashes of authoraterian fascism and leftward socialism and the emerging in the late 19th century of the neo-merchantilists, we face today from our own gov't in many respects what the colonists at the time faced as it pertains to the driving philsophical force behind gov't.
I thought also maybe you were saying that these men today would advocate the violation of this law. If that is true and I really don't think it is the other parts of government that your fan club love so much would they not want to rid our country of that as well.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Would these men violate the law or advocate even armed revolt? Read the first 2 paragraphs at the link above and tell me what you think just on that alone. If that's not enough, then check out the Mecklenburg accords as another example or just consider the events from 1760's through 1782' to answer that question. As for your question of "your fan club......rid our country of that as well? Been trying to do that since the 1970's!
Hey I am all for limited Government control of my life,
No argument from me!
but when people try and tell me someone would make a good president but they are also to stupid to know what to do during the national anthem even a bad version of it is just silly.
You know what AV8, I can say I've realized that telling you that someone would make a good President is not a good idea at all. There is no mixed signals from you as to the type President and the type gov't you believe we should have and congrats because you have it my friend and my guess is no matter which one gets elected in Nov. you will still for the most part have it. BTW: Have you thought about going to Kosovo to defend the new muslim state? My guess that's the next stop for the US soldier.
Heck he could have looked at everyone else on stage and known what to do. I think he knew what to do and he did not want to much like his Pledge of allegiance stance because of the war.
What exactly is his stance? Obama is not the antiwar candidate that many on the left and right in this country portray that he is.
https://web.archive.org/web/2013012...checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html
Check the record! Check the record!
I would want someone running for President to know and follow federal law. This also goes for someone wanting my vote for the Senate or House.
Sorry, something just struck me funny!
You say to hold Washington and Jefferson to the same standard that I would hold Obama or Clinton or Thompson or McCain or whoever else.
No, I didn't say hold Washington and Jefferson to their standard, (oh wait I did say that) I threw Washington and Jefferson out as other examples just to compare today to back then. It's up to you as to what standard and what reasons to use. My point was why condemn Obama, which you are free to do anyway, because he did not do something that even the founding fathers of this country never did and in fact never felt such practice was needed in the first place.
AV, I know this won't come across nice but you sound like the pharisee of Jesus' day who practised and demanded a public display in worship towards God but who's heart was of another purpose. In the end Jesus said of them, "I never knew you!" I'd rather Obama be true to his convictions if that is what they were so we see truth than the rest who made the pledge knowing in their heart it was only public display and was disconnected from their true principles. Are you really that taken in by such shallow acts of public display?
Washington and Jefferson are not running for president which is why it peaked my interests to why you picked these two out of the thousands that you could have picked.
Typically conservatives claim to carry the Constitutional banner and the traditions of the founders. They even go so far as to claim their appointments to SCOTUS are what is described as "orginalists" suggesting a direct philosophical connection to the founding fathers. In that vein, I choose the 2 men I choose but as I said, there are others I could have as well.
I still think you have a reason
( I love conspiracies, someone strike up the X-Files theme song. Where's my UFO/Alien suit?)but if you do not want to share I sure can't force you to.
(Well by Gawd there autta be a law agin that and force me to share!)Anyway there is plenty for me to dislike about Obama and this is just one small thing.