How to murder people with wood?

Page 2 of 4  
tom wrote:

sycophant (n) sycophant
syc·o·phant [síkəfənt, síkə fànt, skəfənt, skəfànt] n
toady, flatterer, bootlicker, brownnoser, minion, yes man
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

--Presidential oath of office, Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution This is all I would ask of any governing entity. No more, and no less. Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I remembered that wording "from all enemies, foreign and domestic" from the oath of enlistment. Tom tom wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

FWIW, civilian employees swear the same oath. At least in the DOD. I'm not sure about other branches of the Federal Civil Service.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What statute allows that?

So?
So who have "they" "done it to" and what specific legislation has you so upset?

So you're saying that laws that specifically do not affect US citizens are the camel's nose?

Yes, I do. You're the one who isn't "getting it" because either you are misinformed about the legislation you fear or you believe that a nation is obligated to make no distinction between its own citizens and those of other nations.

Torturing? Who is being tortured?

I'm sorry, but now I have no idea what you are on about.

Well, now, it happened to US citizens without whatever legislation has you so upset so what difference does that legislation make?

No, I'm a person who wishes that twits like you would post the docket number for whatever legislation you're on about so the rest of us can at least figure out what you're raving about,.

"Did it?" Did _what_, enacted legislation allowing the government to try noncitizen terrorists by military tribunal, with review by the civilian courts? Yeah, they did it. So what?
If you're thinking that they'll remove the limitation to aliens that is there specifically because the Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot apply such rules to citizens. "They" can't "expand it" unless they replace the Supreme Court.
I really wish people like you who go around being terrified of their own shadows would get lives.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:52:00 -0500, "J. Clarke"

Again, you are missing the point. But there are several places in S.3886 where definitions do not include the designation "alien"
For instance:
(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense--
`(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization, including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces, engaged in hostilities against the United States or its cobelligerents in violation of the law of war;
`(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
`(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
A judge who was willing to expand this could take this text as a writ that allows the President or Secretary of Defense to declare any person who is "affliliated" with a terrorist or suspected terrorist organization as an unlawful enemy combatant. It has created a loaded term that convicts without proof- and the day will come when an attempt is made to apply that term to a citizen.
And while it is declared here:
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Alien unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in section 948a of this title, shall be subject to trial by military commissions as set forth in this chapter.
that alien combatants are subject to trial by military commission, it does not clearly state that citizens are not.
And these are the real jewels:
`(c) Hearsay Evidence- Hearsay evidence is admissible, unless the military judge finds that the circumstances render it unreliable or lacking in probative value, provided that the proponent of the evidence makes the evidence known to the adverse party in advance of trial or hearing.
(3) Before classified evidence may be withheld from the accused under this subsection, the executive or military department or governmental agency which has control over the matter shall ensure and shall certify in writing to the military judge that the disclosure of such evidence to the accused could reasonably be expected to prejudice the national security and that such evidence has been declassified to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the requirements of national security.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any defense counsel who receives classified information admitted pursuant to paragraph (4) shall not be obligated to, and may not, disclose that evidence to the accused.
`(b) Treatment of Certain Items- The military judge in a military commission under this chapter may, upon a sufficient showing, authorize trial counsel in making documents available to the defense through discovery conducted pursuant to such rules as the Secretary shall prescribe--
`(1) to delete specified items of classified information from such documents;
`(2) to substitute an unclassified summary of the information for such classified documents; or
`(3) to substitute an unclassified statement admitting relevant facts that classified information would tend to prove.
I don't know how you read this, but to my eyes it is an absolute violation of both due process and Habeas Corpus. A person can be tried for crimes without being informed of the evidence against them. Any evidence can be deemed harmful to National Security, and a trial can be conducted without the possibility of the accused to confront his accusors or to review and rebuke the evidence used to convict him.
If you take this bill alone, it establishes the right of the President or Secretary of State or their advocates to strip the rights of an individual of their natural right to review the accusations and evidence against them by declaring them an unlawful enemy combatant, and hiding or altering the evidence that may or may not back those claims.
For now, this only applies to aliens. But if another terrorist attack occurs in the future (and that is almost certain) which is found to have been either entirely or partially planned and carried out by citizens of the US, that will be the real test of the legislation.
The provisions in the bill allowing the classification of evidence whose revelation could be construed as harmful to US national security could be taken as a precedent in the context of (for instance) domestic wiretapping. In the period of time immediately following such an attack, Congress will be under tremendous pressure to prevent future outrages through legislation. The natural course for them would be to suspend Habeas Corpus rights and expand the power of federal agencies to monitor private communications without warrants even further than they already have.
All it would take is one prosecutor in one government agency to declare that they have indisputable evidence against an accused domestic terrorist that they suspect was acting in collusion with others, but the evidence and techniques used to obtain it needed to remained classified in the interest of catching the others involved with the plot, for Habeas Corpus to effectively be suspended for US citizens.
After that, Anyone can be arrested, tried and convicted on the basis of secret evidence. They will not have to have done anything- the declaration that evidence was collected via classified means that a person was planning a terrorist attack and must remain secret so that the source of the claimed evidence will remain a viable venue for tracking others will be enough to put any person away without a declared reason.
If there is argument about the total lack of substance in a particular case, the bill above allows the prosecutor "to substitute an unclassified statement admitting relevant facts that classified information would tend to prove." Or in other words- it could be used to grant the accusing agency the right to usurp the jury's task of interpreting the presented evidence and supply a set of conclusions based on secret information in lieu of facts.

They, being the Congress under the direct leadership of the current President, have granted the President and the Secretary of State the power to suspend the right of Habeas Corpus for persons who are accused of crimes, by what effectively amounts to a declaration that the revelation of the evidence against those persons is detrimental to national security, without the checks and balances built into our system of government by the founding fathers. The specific legislation is the "Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006"
Placing that kind of power in the hands of an unfettered few men is a terribly dangerous thing to do- which is why the Constitution prohibits it. Judging from the continuing reactions to the Sept. 11th attacks, and the expected reaction to any future attacks from any quarter -foreign or domestic-, it's not only possible, but extremely likely that this power will eventually be expanded so it may be used against citizens who are suspected of either being active, or in collusion with, terrorists.
That is where the reminder of Sen. McCarthy comes in. There was a man whose personality allowed him to start a massive witch hunt using the word "Communism". With the amount of fear and anger generated by terrorism, another witch hunt using the term "Terrorist" is not only possible, but in the event of another incident, likely.

If I am interpreting "the camel's nose" correctly by assuming that you meant that they are the groundwork for future erosion of our domestic rights, then yes, I am saying that.

As you wish.

You don't watch the news?

The difference is that instead of slander that hurts an innocent person's reputation but leaves them free, the current administration has opened the door to imprisoning us and stripping our rights by decree.

See Above.

Wrong. Article 1 of the US constitution states that "the priviledge of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
The mechanism by which the right may be suspended is already given to the US congress in the Constitution itself- but it must not be invoked in this instance. By declaring a "war" on a nebulous and ill-defined concept like "terrorism", the President has granted the Congress the power and justification to indefinately suspend the writ on the basis of a single attack on domestic soil. We can not and will not ever "win" a war against a concept or behavior. If we were just at war with Iraq or Afganistan, there would eventually be an end to it- one way or the other.
By passing the Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006, they have defined an alternate system of law that can be used as an alternative venue of prosecution for any person who stands accused of terrorism without allowing that person to challenge the evidence that is brought against them. It sounds just fair enough and good enough that most people will swallow it. So instead of being protected by the laws governing evidence and due process, we are now effectively at the mercy of the good intentions of our elected officials- many of whom have already shown us time and time again that they are not to be trusted.
And then there are the murmurings that come flowing out of the spin machine that is the GOP. Evidently, if you're not one of their boys, you're one of the terrorists. If you care about your civil rights, you must have a shady hidden agenda that involves supporting terrorism. There have been propiganda machines like that before in history, and they've never ended in peace and happiness for all. I don't care for the Democrats either- but on balance, I don't see them pulling all the old hateful and murderous tricks in the despot's handbook out of their hats.

And what about you, who are so afraid of the boogeyman Arabs that you are willing to give your rights away at the first glimmer of trouble or danger? I'm not afraid of my shadow, and I'm not afraid of Terrorists. You know what I'm afraid of? Guys like you- who would sell your soul for a moment of fuzzy false security.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Absent habeas corpus, how would one prove citizenship?

And I have no problem with arresting reporters who are citizens, so long as the arresting agent can demonstrate probable cause.

There are two habeas corpi. One, is created by Federal Statute and can be removed or modified by Federal Statute. The other, sometimes called the Great Writ, is embodied in the Constitution itself and my only be set aside by the Congress, and then only in cases of invasion or rebellion, neither of which is currently applicable. The Great Write, which dates back to the Magna Carta, has always been available to aliens on US soil.

Again, absent habeas corpus, how would a citizen accused of being an alien, proof he was not?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You sound like a wannabe ACLU scheister. Nobody is talking about suspending Habeus Corpus for American citizens. But why let the facts get in the way of your fiery bombast?
I want my country to have the tools it needs to protect itself against enemies of the state and not be hobbled by activists who will do anything they can to castrate and beat America down using its own democracy against itself.
Because their activities and endeavors often serve enemies of the state better than it serves American society at large, I have to wonder where the loyalties of these activists lie; are they good citizens trying to protect democracy (at any cost to the general public) or do they have an agenda that may not be so true blue?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3 Nov 2006 09:56:20 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Ahh, the pervasive slight-of-hand of the GOP spinners. How exactly is it that standing up for freedom and civil liberties has become an insult?

Nobody is talking about suspending Habeus Corpus for American citizens- yet. But there is a clear and logical path that will take us right there, and the administration is on it. They declare an open ended war on an ill-defined descriptive term, apply that term first to non-citizens and use it to suspend their human rights. Then sometime in the future when a nutjob decides to blow up the county courthouse, it's very easy and tempting for legislators to use the same arguments that worked so well against the foreigners to suspend the rights of known associates of the person or persons responsible for domestic terrorist activities. That's the door, and if the current legislation continues to be expanded, it will happen. Once that door is opened, it's a downhill slide. It's far easier to declare a person a terrorist and lock them away without specific charges or evidence than it is to actually establish facts.

If you think most politicians are trying to actually protect you, you're wrong. They're trying to make you feel like they're doing something to protect you so you will vote for them again. Rather than doing the work of determining actual guilt or innocence, they're tossing people into detainment camps so that they can say they caught the bad guys. Without any facts or charges, we just have to take their word for it. Our government needs to be accountable to us. That's the whole deal- the whole point. Every single thing America is and represents is built on that concept.
We lose that, we're no longer the America you love.

Wonder away, but don't go convincing yourself that standing up for the Constitution and the principles it represents is somehow unpatriotic. I've seen the argument about our "social contract" only applying to US citizens, but that is completely contrary to the intentions of the Founding Fathers, and the spirit of our country. Crossing a border does not grant anyone the right to don jackboots and trample anyone that gets in their way. As a point of fact, that was the very behavior we were opposing when we went to Iraq the first time.
If a British subject were accused of a crime, would you advocate taking that person and locking them away without trial or evidence because they are not a US citizen? How about a Dutch person, or an Austrailian? Are the French fair game? Can we go into Germany and torture their citizens?
You guys with your Mom and apple pie arguments about the US always having clean underwear are getting us into very dangerous waters. We as a society do not have the right to pick and choose which people have rights and which do not. People have rights, period- that's the whole point of our social contract. It doesn't apply only between Maine and Alaska- it applies to the human race. You want your rights, and so does everyone else.
Believe it or not, there are innocent people all over the place. They work hard and try to improve their lives, too. Some of them are criminals- but not most of them. They have families and jobs, and they do what they have to do to get by- just like you. Being lucky enough to be born in the *right* geographic area doesn't make you a good person, and being born in the *wrong* one doesn't make you a bad person deserving only of imprisonment and torture. Speaking a different language, dressing differently, or having a different skin tone does not make a person inferior to you.
This is not that complicated. And you are not in as much danger as the TV tells you you are. You act as if terrorists are shelling your kids' school every second Tuesday, and suicide bombers blowing themselves up in front of the grocery store is an everyday occurance in Columbus, OH. Some bad people flew planes into three buildings on purpose- five years ago. It was a horrible thing- but it was less destructive than a hurricane. Fewer people die in terrorist attacks than in car crashes. There is still a better chance that I will be mauled by a bear than killed by a terrorist.
So get your panties out of a bunch, take off the combat boots, and worry about your freedom- you're still as safe as you ever were. The real danger is handing our country over to despots because we got spooked.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Prometheus wrote:

Unfortunately, I do not have nearly as much time to spend on this as you do. You seem to be ardent about getting your opinion across. That's fine. I actually understand your opinion and, although I don't agree, see merits in the some of the points you are making.
Both of our opinions require an intellectual compromise. I believe yours requires that we be willing to compromise national security and the protection of the citizenry at large to make sure that everyone, even the worst of the worst, is given full protection to the letter of the law and even going as far as creating new laws or changing existing ones to extend those protections to people who aren't covered now, even if it means impairing the ability of the government to protect against threats.
My opinion is that the government needs to have the power to protect us against threats. I don't believe now is a good time in history to apply more restraints on the government. I believe that this is important enough that we need to risk trusting our government to do the right thing. I don't fear that our current government really wants to extend and abuse its powers so it can become the fascist dictatorship that you seem to fear. And that's my compromise; that we have to trust the government to do the right thing.
You seem to have a mindset that the government is hell bent to strip our rights away. (If you reply to this, maybe you can explain what you believe the government's motive for this would be). I believe there are a lot of people out there, that subscribe to many of the same thoughts you do, that are willing to take active steps in undermining the administration with no thought of any of the many other consequences. They have become very skilled at battering and torturing the system by implosion - destruction from within using the country's own democracy as a weapon against itself. And believe me; the enemies of the state are very happy to take full advantage of the numerous benefits that come their way from this.
I believe if you going to fear a hostile regime coming to power, you should REALLY fear the one that could come to power if America fails to protect itself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6 Nov 2006 11:42:46 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Yes, that's my compromise. Predicated on the idea that our legal structures are intended to protect those who are *not* the "worst of the worst." Given the egregious nature of our enemies' activities, it should not be that difficult to properly convict them using the standard that we are trying to preserve against their actions. If the government needs to hold them for a limited time while gathering evidence prior to a full trial, that would seem to be a valid compromise. Conviction without evidence should never be allowed.

And that's yours. Aptly stated.

The motive of the government is the same as it always was. Power, and it's aquisition. In our system, there are those who are good and loyal citizens doing a tough job the best they can, and there are those who are simply trying to gain and hold as much power as they can. We've seen a lot of evidence these past few years that the administration currently in power is willing and able to lie and conceal things from us, and many of them are engaged in activities that are entirely criminal. And we've seen evidence that the other side has those same problems in past years, though those breaches are often of a different character.
When our system of government was drafted, some very intellegent men argued long and hard over every minute detail of the government they were building, and one thing that comes through very clearly is their insistance on three major things- First, that the government need be accountable to the citizenry, second, that the three branches of our government each have the ability to counterbalance the other two, and third, that each citizen have the right to petition their government, and each accused man have the right to confront his accusors.
They did not simply trust in the good intentions of the others who were in that room, or those of the persons to follow them. That is why our Union has stood for 230 years.
While it may work to the benefit of the odd "bad guy" when we protect and honor our core principles, it is far more important to vouchsafe the liberty of the innocent. Liberty is not, and has never been a guarantee of safety. And liberty is the rock our country is built on- not safety. We have our problems, sure- but not of the nature and degree that other countries who do not afford people these basic rights.
The beauty of the Constitution is that in never asks us to trust the government. History and human nature teach us that when we do, we open ourselves to enslavement.

But I don't, because it won't happen. Irsael is a fraction of the size and strength of the US, and is surrounded on all sides by the conflict. The Arabs surrounding them have not managed to take over thier country- so what makes you believe that we are so feeble and weak that we will simply lay down arms and bow to Mecca if a couple of thousand guys in dresses with AK-47s manage to make it across the ocean? The problem is a gnat dressed up in giants' clothing to give us all something to hate and fear. They can hurt us from time to time, but they cannot break and enslave our country- we have to do that ourselves. *That* is how the terrorists win.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Prometheus (in snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com) said:
| The problem is a gnat dressed up in giants' clothing to give | us all something to hate and fear.
Hate is a drain on our strength that we can ill-afford. Fear is nothing more than a non-intellectual notification of danger - to be recognized and dealt with in the most rational and effective way possible.
| They can hurt us from time to | time, but they cannot break and enslave our country- we have to do | that ourselves. *That* is how the terrorists win.
Well said. We've been hurt in the past and it's inevitable that we'll be hurt again. Someone once said: "That which doesn't kill us outright makes us stronger." I think that'll remain true as long as there are enough who say: "Not on *my* watch!" - and I don't think we have any shortage of such people.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nor do I, though I often wish more of the people would participate. There are a whole lot of folks who would get on the rooftops of every town and city in the nation with guns, (and even rocks, if need be,) to repel a foreign invader. Now if only there were some way to get that same attitude applied to participation in the general political discussion, we'd be doing very well.
All that participation might not always lead to what I hope for, but it would certainly be better than the general apathy most seem to have regarding our collective political obligations. I can't even begin to count the numbers of people whom I have heard complain about the government, only to follow that bellyaching with the statement that they don't vote- missing the obvious point that if they don't, someone else will.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
said:

The problem is not lack of participation in the general political discussion, it's that the politicians in the US have stacked the deck so that anybody who is neither an incumbent nor a member of one of the two major parties is at a serious disadvantage. And history has shown that both parties when they are in control do pretty much the same thing, find new and creative ways to buy votes and line their pockets.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:06:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"

I can't really argue with any of that. About the only thing we can do as a nation is get fed up and toss all the bums out one of these days.
I'd submit that if we all were participating in the general political discussion, we'd have a pretty good shot at coming up with a third viable option. While it's been two-party Democratic V. Republican for quite some time, that hasn't always been the case. The problem (IMO) comes from waiting until voting day, and then choosing from what somebody else put on the ballot. I don't know anyone who is very enthusiastic about either of the two parties (though I have met a number who are very supportive of the President). Out of 300 million people in the country, there have to be at least enough decent people to start up a new party that can challenge the big two.
Problem is, the big two are both so crappy, most of us (and I'm ashamed to say I'm guity of it as well) feel like we have to vote for the "less bad" candidate in every election cycle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A third party might change things , but maybe too much for a lot of peoples' comfort levels. I'm all for it, though. Comfort be damned. Tom Prometheus wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
said:

True, as evidenced by the way they all rushed to jam through the 'new world order'(nafta and wt). We are governed by a bunch of elite class wanabees. The problem is, they are too dumb to realiize that the real elite class of the world won't even talk to these clowns. They just make fun of them while they take over the US economy. In another 20 years, there will be no 'America' as we old farts grew up in. Actually, that is already gone. The America my father fought for in WWII is dead. We are going to be a 3rd world country, the real purpose of the above. It is still necessary to vote, if for nothing else than to keep up the ruse that it actually makes a difference who is in the whitehouse. And always try to pick the 'lessor of the two evils' or evil of the two lessors which seems more accurate... Elections are just a game the 'elite wanabees' play with us to keep us at each others throats so we won't unite and go after them. The very same thing the Muslims in power do. They keep their followers hating us so thay won't go after the real people keeping them in the gutter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 2999 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your point about Israel is compelling however; I am not so sure that we are as safe as you think.
Regarding the activists that are working towards things that ultimately result in the weakening of our nation: Are you sure that many of them are not actually enemies of the state? Are you sure you really want to hitch up behind people who claim altruistic and patriotic values but whose goals ultimately end up weakening our nation? I'm all for protecting the constitution but a lot of them are using it as a weapon against the establishment and our society in general. The more these people break down our system, the less secure we become.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<...snipped...>

I'm confused at this paragraph, it would seem to be equally applicable to people on _either_ side of this argument.
What is really meant by "weakening our nation"? and "these people (who) break down our system" Our system of laws and equal protection under them? Or our system of arbitrary enforcement?
Remember what Orwell's slogan for the government: "Ignorance is strength, war is peace, and freedom is slavery"
rar
--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland - snipped-for-privacy@charm.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 04:31:56 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@fellspt.charm.net () wrote:

And let us not forget that we are at war with Iraq, and Saddamn Hussein is the devil incarnate because we have *always* been at war with Iraq, and that man has *always* been the devil.
Also remember to thank your leaders for lowering the price of gasoline in honor of the elections. It's like getting an larger chocolate ration!
Shinola9 (for lack of any other name,) I want you to understand that I am not attacking you personally. I've spent so much time on this because if I can help even one person- yourself, or some others who are merely reading along, understand this argument and begin to question what has been going on in fits and spurts since the founding of our country, it will have been worth any amount of time I can spend on the subject. I am not trying to harm our democracy, I am doing the only thing I can think of to help preserve it- because I want to live in it, not just remember it fondly.
I will have you note that above, I am looking only for an understanding of the total argument, and for you to question the party line that is being given to us all for yourself. I do not wish for you to simply agree with me- the truth of the matter is for you to find.
That's all anyone can ask of you or any one of us- because we are free. I understand the fear that a lot of people feel when they think about this- but we cannot let fear rob us of our senses, or we will forever be at the mercy of whomever can tell the scariest tale. There will always be someone or something to fight against, and the world will never be entirely safe for every single person. We will never live forever, but we can live free and without fear until it's time to go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.